Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="javadoc, post: 4266027, member: 338"] Very interesting article. The most important section deals with possible NCAA actions in response to the passage of a bill like this. The article mentions that in response to the passage of the original NIL law in California, the NCAA was threatened by justice with antitrust actions if the org "boycotted" California teams. In that case it seems fairly clear why the NCAA couldn't act, because NIL involves payment from third parties to the players, monies not officially channeled through the school in a quasi-wage capacity. The NCAA couldn't use that as a component of its definition of amateurism, because the players still weren't being paid by the school - outside the scholarship. The article then says that because of this, the NCAA can't or won't do anything to California teams if the revenue-sharing law passes. I don't think that is a clear conclusion, but it may be correct, although not for the reasons stated. The difference between NIL and revenue sharing is that one is a direct payment from the school to the players, and the other is payment from third parties. The NCAA's definition of amateurism, on which it claims the authority to govern and regulate, is based on money channels directly from the players to the school. In that regard, the proposed California law is nothing like the previous NIL law - it really is a difference of kind, not degree. So the NCAA should not feel shackled by the prior NIL experience when deciding whether to suspend California teams' eligibility. But the problem is in the legal status of the amateurism definition itself. Justice Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence on the recent "educational aid grants" case that he doubted whether the entire scheme of no-pay-for-play-except-for-the-scholarship was truly legal. Even though the issue was not raised in the case, his concurrence is a bad omen for the NCAA. Here's how it goes. NCAA: Our charter defines amateurism in certain ways, and we have declared players ineligible for violating that amateur status. The California law requires players to be in violation of our amateur status on its face, therefore, all players for California teams are ineligible. Clear as day. Courts: Now that we're asked to discuss it, your amateurism definition is illegal/unconstitutional, and should never have been enforceable in the first place. You got away with it for a long time, but you're done. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?