NCAA & Washington

[johnb]

Newspaper update on political currents and the NCAA: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/s...orts-laws.html

I tend to think things will continue as they are, with the organization acting as reactionary and minimally incremental as possible, and then whoosh, the NCAA is extinct and something new will pop up. Like the dodo bird in about 1690, the passenger pigeon in 1914, Kodak in 2012, and Atlantic cod in 2032. Whoosh.

[JasonEvans]

The Supreme Court will hear the Alston vs. NCAA case today. This is a really big deal an it could completely upend the amateur model that has been at the center of NCAA athletics forever.

If the Supreme Court sides with the former students, those caps on educational benefits could go away. If individual athletic conferences agree, schools could offer tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits for things such as postgraduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad opportunities, vocational school payments. That could create a bidding war for the best players.

The former athletes who brought the case, including former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, say the NCAA’s current rules deprive students of the ability to be rewarded for their athletic talents and hard work because most of them will never play professional sports. So far, the former players have won every round of the case. Lower courts agreed that the NCAA’s rules capping the education-related benefits schools can violate a federal antitrust law.

In addition to the AP article cited above, I would suggest reading this ESPN story: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...al-ncaa-future

[MChambers]

Apparently it did not go well for the NCAA at oral argument. The justices were skeptical of the arguments being made by Seth Waxman, the NCAA's attorney. (Full disclosure Waxman and I were partners at the same firm, until I retired four years ago. We worked in entirely different areas, however.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/supr...-pay-case.html

[kako]

Apparently it did not go well for the NCAA at oral argument. The justices were skeptical of the arguments being made by Seth Waxman, the NCAA's attorney. (Full disclosure Waxman and I were partners at the same firm, until I retired four years ago. We worked in entirely different areas, however.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/supr...-pay-case.html

Given that this is not a red/blue issue, I would expect the court to rule objectively. Which, for most people except the NCAA, says that people have a right to make their own money.

All things eventually change. Those that fight change too stubbornly usually are the ones that lose. Looking back one day, the NCAA's intransigence on this issue will probably be one of the nails in its own coffin.

9F

[uh_no]

Given that this is not a red/blue issue, I would expect the court to rule objectively. Which, for most people except the NCAA, says that people have a right to make their own money.

All things eventually change. Those that fight change too stubbornly usually are the ones that lose. Looking back one day, the NCAA's intransigence on this issue will probably be one of the nails in its own coffin.

9F

I'll say this, and nothing more as this is already skirting the lines, but somewhat relevant as we're talking already about an inherently political issue...as it's a SCOTUS case:

the court almost always rules objectively. As someone who is not a lawyer, but who reads an awful lot of arguments and decisions (relative to most non-lawyers), in almost all cases, these cases aren't in the supreme court if there aren't good objective legal arguments for both sides. The vast majority of cases are NOT decided on political lines. Here are the numbers

2020 term: 22 cases, 11 unanimous, 3 on ideological lines
2019 term: 63 cases, 24 unanimous, 7 on ideological lines
2018 term: 73 cases, 29 unanimous, 7 on ideological lines

So some nearly 90% of cases are not on the lines that most people assume they would be, and in general, arguments on either side are far more nuanced than most media would ever report.


In this case, what is the distinction between the NCAA and any other organization that would limit itself to members not getting paid for their participation? Should we ban amateurism in ANY capacity? Does that not violate a person or organization's right to free association? (i'm not saying it does...i'm just pointing out that it could be a logical conclusion from how many of these arguments are being framed) Since obviously it can't do that, how do we distinguish between the two? what is the test that allows us to say some organizations can demand amateurism while others can't? And if such a test is to exist, what is its justification?

A completely common and viable thing to do would be to rule on some very limited part of the case, and leave the rest for some future case to "see how things shake out" if you will.

[75Crazie]

Huh, and here I was thinking kako was talking about an Arkansas red vs Kentucky blue issue.