The end of the NCAA

[Beeg_Dawg]

http://cardinal.gostanford.com/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=%40Z1XhzTqHmHE2YZTaW0uRrueMtBqXaEZIuMa80E5oiko%3D

Wonder how this will impact smaller schools.  Can’t say I am unhappy with this.  College athletes are little more than serfs getting scraps from the royal table.

[rjnwmill]

Your views are important here. IIRC your son’s athletic aspirations came to an end due to injury?

Would this program have been a material benefit to him?  With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, would this have altered his career path at all?

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[Beeg_Dawg]

[quote quote=4902]Your views are important here. IIRC your son’s athletic aspirations came to an end due to injury? Would this program have been a material benefit to him? With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, would this have altered his career path at all?[/quote]

Couple of things.  He was miffed when he showed up on Madden College Football without knowing his name and # would be used.  I don’t think this would have had a big benefit for #74, but a few extra bucks would have come in handy for rent not covered by Stanfords housing allowance.

Here is a lift from emails with Young Dawg.

“”I like Judge Kavanaugh’s take (his opinion starts on pg 41, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf):

 

“The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.  All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks.  Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick.  News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism.  Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.  Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor.  And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.  Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition.

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year.  Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes.  College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries.  Colleges build lavish new facilities.  But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing.  But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.  In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes.  And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules.”

 

Will this be the end of college athletics? Probably not, college sports existed before, they’ll continue to exist after.  Look to the smaller schools that don’t have powerhouse football and men’s basketball programs to drive top-line revenue.

 

I’m excited about this, and can’t wait for the follow-on lawsuits to be filed.  The SC seems eager to dismantle the NCAA’s compensation rules – they just need people to file lawsuits with the appropriate legal arguments.””

Young Dawg

[cardcrimson]

It will create a huge disparity among large schools and smaller schools, and football and basketball players and the rest.

And like anyone will believe this:

• Compensation is not provided in exchange for athletic participation or achievement
• Compensation is not provided as an inducement for or contingent upon enrollment at Stanford

Then what is it provided for? Recruits will know that the boosters will pay when they sign the LOI.

In a few short months, every football playing in the SEC will be driving around in a newly leased car provided by the local booster/car dealer, walking around in snappy duds provided by the big and tall store, and eating/drinking for free at the local sports bar. . . .

• This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by cardcrimson.

[Genuine Realist]

The G League is another challenge.

I don’t like schools paying players. It destroys the academic model, and that would not be good.

I do think the kids should be able to take money from whomever wants to give it to them, except the school and boosters.

I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.

[Mick]

It’s going to lead to some issues.  For one, the number of athletes actually going to be paid will be very, very small relative to the D1 athlete population.  For two, I can see a lot of the non-revenue sports falling by the wayside, given that football revenue and men’s basketball revenue support those programs.  You’ll have impressionable young men think more and more of themselves as pro athletes and less as students, which will wreak havoc with the 99%+ of the athletes who won’t make lifetime earnings as athletes.

So in the future, I strongly suspect that there will be a lawsuit  (if there hasn’t already been) which will accuse colleges of not doing enough to ensure that athletes take their academic opportunity seriously, and that the demands of their sports infringe upon their academic potential.

[cardcrimson]

Here’s a question I’ve not heard an answer to. Perhaps because I’m not really listening. . . .

What will the IRS do and/or the DA from Manhattan? Trumps CEO and the Trump Org are facing criminal charges for not reporting benefits like tuition as compensation. Will the universities that offer tuition, room and board to athletes, and the athletes themselves, be charged similarly for not reporting the compensation on their taxes? Slippery slope.

[Mick]

Here’s a question I’ve not heard an answer to. Perhaps because I’m not really listening. . . . What will the IRS do and/or the DA from Manhattan? Trumps CEO and the Trump Org are facing criminal charges for not reporting benefits like tuition as compensation. Will the universities that offer tuition, room and board to athletes, and the athletes themselves, be charged similarly for not reporting the compensation on their taxes? Slippery slope.

Frankly, I don’t know why they’re not taxable now.  The basic test is that scholarships for tuition is not taxable, the amount is in box 5 of the athlete’s 1098-T, although they’re occasionally on a W-2 or a 1099-R depending on the nature of the ride.  The rule is that “if you do not do work, you do not pay taxes.”  So academic work is considered education, not work per se so it isn’t taxable.

Athletic scholarships, on the other hand, require work.  So they should already be taxable.  I’m guessing that the dodge is that the athletes are considered students first.  But if they become pros and the colleges are required to pay, and the students are clearly attending college to facilitate their for-pay athletic participation, then yes…it’s likely that athletic scholarships will be considered to be taxable income.

[Author]

Posts