What does that have to do with it? Point being, the NCAA isn't alone in this and the real driver for all of this is the NFL. They're the one without a minor league/pro option out of high school. They're the one with the 3-year rule that forces kids into the college system. If that (pro option out of HS) was in place, none of this happens and we treat football the same way we do baseball. But no, the NFL gets a complete free ride on this. Not only in getting their talent for free, but from the argument about paying the players.
Even to this day guys (they team up to do all the teams) update all the rosters, playbooks, etc. and upload them to the server. Getting them is easy. One click and you've got a fully updated roster. But you have to have a PS3 or have it on PC. Other games do it too. People will use the course creator to make courses like Augusta, Pine Valley, etc. on PGA2K23, but they have to change the names due to potential lawsuits.
No. Did it go over your head or something? Maybe you could explain why it's so "awful". Yeah, that's what I thought. BTW, It would actually be written as "Good Grief". You're welcome. Hopefully you won't look like such a "Donzo" moving forward.
Soccer teams have Uber rich ownership too. I imagine formula one owners may be the richest in the world.
I don't get your point here. Soccer isn't an amateur system. If you're good, you're technically pro as a kid (Youth Contracts). The clubs have competitive travel teams (with players on youth contracts) from U-23 all the way down to U-10 (or younger). Frankly, there is no other sport in the world that OWNS its player development like soccer. The No. 1 reason USSC ruled the way it did on NIL is because they determined that the kids were literally locked into a system that prevented them from making money off their talents. . . and they were right. THAT is why we got this. In every other sport, you have the option of going pro out of high school (or earlier in soccer). But the NFL has a literal rule in place that prevents them from entering the league for 3 years. We don't have this problem in baseball (or even hoops) because those good enough can turn pro right away and get paid for their services. I've only been making this point for 30 friggin years because it was obvious what was coming in that system. The NCAA is a non-profit system. The NFL is a for-profit system with 32 individual owners, all of whom get to stuff more money in their pockets because they shuffle player development (and paying them) off on the NCAA. So, again, what is your actual point. Because you clearly missed mine by a mile.
The original post I was referring to said nfl owners were the richest ownership group in the work. I responded with I agree in principle but you were wrong. I think soccer leagues and formula one have richer ownership groups. If you would read and not react you would be better served.
It appears the NCAA is finally realizing that they will lose this case as well as several others. High level talks are going to happen to agree upon a settlement deal. With payouts to past players and revenue sharing going forward. Will an antitrust settlement actually settle college sports? Lots of questions remain Front the article: To settle the looming House v. NCAA lawsuit as well as at least two other major federal antitrust claims, multiple sources say the NCAA would pay more than $2.7 billion in damages to past athletes over the next decade. Power conferences would agree to a future system for schools directly sharing revenue with athletes, a permissive choice that's projected to be in the neighborhood of $20 million per year for each school.
Have you read the case and do you understand the claim? Here is a short article: Bringing Down the House: House v. NCAA Could Potentially Mean Big Changes for Collegiate NIL Rules | JD Supra “At the heart of the House case lies the allegation that the NCAA and Power Five conferences violated antitrust laws through their imposition of restrictions on NIL activities and their prohibition of sharing broadcast revenue with student-athletes. specific claims include: Conspiracy to fix prices, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Group boycott or refusal to deal, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Unjust enrichment. In pursuit of a remedy, the plaintiffs seek an injunction aimed at restraining the NCAA from enforcing its NIL-related rules. The primary objective of this injunction is to prevent the NCAA from implementing these specific rules, which the plaintiffs believe are anticompetitive and in violation of antitrust laws. As a result, during the legal proceedings, the injunction would bar the NCAA from enforcing these rules, thereby enabling student-athletes to continue exploring NIL opportunities and earning NIL compensation. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs are seeking backpay to compensate for lost NIL revenues. This encompasses a wide range of potential losses, including: Lost NIL broadcast revenues. Lost NIL video game revenues. Lost revenues resulting from third-party NIL deals that have been taking place since July 1, 2021, as well as those that would have occurred since June 15, 2016, if not for the NCAA's prior NIL rules.“ After scotus laughed the ncaa out of court in a unanimous decision finding the schools engaged in anti-competitive trade practices, I’d think this has a fair chance. Given NIL deals today, can anyone argue that past players were not harmed by the denial of their rights to use their own name, image? And it seems these schools, conferences, ncaa have plenty of tv money… If only the ncaa/schools either remained truly amateur or addressed this head on when they sold the sports soul for $.
Can we prove alternate realities in the courtroom while we're at it? I'm sure someone in some other universe had NIL way before we had it here... so I want to sue becasue of that back pay they owe us here in that reality.
How is violating the law (Sherman act here) different from somebody harming another by, say, defrauding a person? If someone broke the law and it cost folks money (that they kept), most would seek a recovery. Not sure why this situation is different.
Defrauding? Lol... . making a buck on it goes back to... since the time they first sold a ticket to a college football game... over 150 years ago. Before the Sherman Act was ever dreamed up. Plus there is no monopoly with the NCAA, they are the rules governing branch of collegiate athletics... not the financial arm that all college revenue is filtered though. Several different conferences handle their own financial deals, no monopoly. Yeah, retro "defrauding" before a benefit was ever established is pure stupidity to even think about claiming. That is pure lawfare idiocy... However, for the future income consideration this might be decided in the SCOTUS... But with individual conferences all over the nation there is no NCAA monopoly. That's why the NCAA should only be focused on assessing rules violations only, and not be used as a financially governing central body of all college football. This is why the conferences should never be abolished or conglomerated into one big national conference. That might be a monopolistic entity.
Who is responsible for Timmy not collecting money from Tebow Jersey’s and him not getting paid for being on the cover of ncaa footbal? Who did get paid from ncaa football? Somebody got all that money and Timmy got none. Someone, I have a suspicion, drempt up that system and hid behind amateur sports to make a pile of money. Now the lawyer sharks smell blood and the gig is up.. whoever is holding the money is the meal ticket. Let’s hope our courts make a decision that works for future sports instead of opening up the bank for a feeding frenzy of ugly lawyers. The ncaa is a front for the elite sports schools to hide behind and that gig is up though. No one believes it anymore. NFL lite is coming fast. Or maybe that’s all we’ve been watching for decades really, we are just now opening our eyes to reality.
I wonder how much "back-pay" these same student athletes owe the Universities for their free education and other gifts too. I don't think most jersey sales of other none super-star athletes would be enough to cover their tuition. Lol.. and who do you think cashes in if they get some sort of back-pay settlement? Lawyers... The NFL is probably behind all of this, they want to control more sports and they see an untapped cash cow, in college football, waiting to be milked. The worst thing for amateur sports to simply split into off campus games... therefore allowing colleges and universities go non-profit on all sports. There are several "non-profits" already making a mint in this world, I wonder if this would work in college sports? Something has to stop these greedyazz lawfare lawyers from taking over college athletics.
This one was not close. “The Supreme Court found the NCAA and member schools illegally capped education-related expenses for college athletes. In doing so, the Court voided time-honored NCAA legal arguments for preferential treatment under federal antitrust law.” (Easy read: House v. NCAA Legal Primer, Why NCAA Interim NIL Policy May Hurt NCAA) And there is no doubt that the NCAA and schools conspired: “Here, the alleged illegal act is a conspiracy, through NCAA amateurism rules, to prohibit college athletes from using their NIL to sign endorsement deals, promote their own business ventures, engage in self-employment or obtain other benefits from the commercialization of their identities.“ I do not know how this will turn out but I would bet that during discovery there will be memos/emails amongst NCAA folks recognizing the risk that their (schools, conferences, ncaa) collusion to prevent athletes from recognizing revenue put them at risk of unjust trade practices. You could see this coming a mile away but the ncaa/schools did not want to see it b/c they wanted to keep all the money and cheap labor. Personally I think the whole thing is a damn shame. College football should be students and amateurs. I’m rapidly losing interest. But the NCAA did this, they knew they were on the wrong side of these laws, and they will, and should, face scrutiny, in my opinion. Obviously you have every right to your opinion regardless of the law and facts, but as the scotus unanimously decided, this isn’t even a close case.
