Starting DE Edmond gone; Portalled out

[Bucs90]

I'm not a Sherman Act expert, but the language used in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the opinion upheld by SCOTUS in Alston has a pretty good explanation:
"The treatment of Student-Athletes is not the result of free market competition. To the contrary, it is the result of a cartel of buyers acting in concert to artificially depress the price that sellers could otherwise receive for their services. Our antitrust laws were originally meant to prohibit exactly this sort of distortion."
If the portal rules are structured to restrict free market movement to the point it prevents a player from earning money, especially more money, in a given year I think it may violate the Act. I think instead of making transfer rules more restrictive, you're actually going to see it become less so to the point of elimination of any sit out rules. Everyone will have immediate eligibility. I'm at a loss as to why it hasn't happened already and the NCAA's piss poor explanations when they grant or deny immediate eligibility aren't helping.

It wouldn’t violate that. The players who sit a year still can sign NIL, still get a scholarship, still participate in team activities. They just dont play in games. If the 9th circuit calls them employees then the employer (team and NCAA) can assign employees how they wish. If the employer says you cant play on the field for 1 year, but NO other benefits or pay are altered, I dont see how a court can say otherwise. The court cannot dictate which players get to play in a game.

 

[Thirdcatgy]

A big problem lies in taking things away once unbottled. It rarely goes backwards. Hopefully, this time will be an exception on both the portal and NIL fronts.

 

[Bucs90]

A big problem lies in taking things away once unbottled. It rarely goes backwards. Hopefully, this time will be an exception on both the portal and NIL fronts.

If it doesnt go backwards the whole system is gonna collapse

 

[punydevil]

It wouldn’t violate that. The players who sit a year still can sign NIL, still get a scholarship, still participate in team activities. They just dont play in games. If the 9th circuit calls them employees then the employer (team and NCAA) can assign employees how they wish. If the employer says you cant play on the field for 1 year, but NO other benefits or pay are altered, I dont see how a court can say otherwise. The court cannot dictate which players get to play in a game.

I could see a court saying the fact they can't play in a game diminishes their earning power. Who wants a pitch man who doesn't play? But like I said, I'm no Sherman Act expert.

 

[Bucs90]

I could see a court saying the fact they can't play in a game diminishes their earning power. Who wants a pitch man who doesn't play? But like I said, I'm no Sherman Act expert.

I disagree. If a court ruled that, then that opens the door to telling coaches they cant redshirt a player, or worse, saying all players must get equal playing time to build their brand.

And since NIL technically isnt tied to the school or the player actually playing for a certain team, that “earning power” isn’t affected by playing time, at least on paper legally.

However I do agree players will make that argument and that argument WILL win in a battle to eliminate the 4 yr eligibility rule.

 

[JGH 35]

One way to put some sanity in this without restricting free trade would be to pass a regulation that no company or individual who contributes money to a school can participate in its NIL program. This will get the boosters of the schools out of it and stop the pay for play fiasco. If a company, like Coca-Cola, decides Spencer Rattler would be a great spokesman and marketing tool like any NFL player, they can hire him to do ads. Since Coca-Cola is not a contributor to USC that would remove any conflict of interest. This also would not prevent players from selling autographs, pictures, etc. to anyone willing to buy them.