14 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
John Canzano's avatar

Lots of college admins telling me they worry an NIL cap isn't feasible or enforceable because it flies in the face of free market.

Expand full comment
scforthewin's avatar

…..and it shouldn’t be. Why should a school like USC that has built a blue blood brand over decades of on field results and positioned themselves thru academic excellence to attract game changing alums who can participate in NIL be penalized with a cap so that the WSUs of the world can keep up?

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Because maybe USC wants some competition. Or, maybe you like going to games and watching USC practice because the competition sees no point in showing up. That almost did in the Yankees. Even George Steinbrenner, possibly less arrogant than you, figured that one out.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

For the same reasons the Yankees shouldn’t be allowed to win by buying the best players with no restrictions and TV money should be shared in the NFL. It’s not that simple, but creating the possibility of competition is essential. SC can’t achieve at a level consistent with its massive geographic advantage and “tradition.” The sport of college football is better off if SC’s struggle to do so does not become a simple question of how much more it can pay players than WSU.

Expand full comment
Jen GH's avatar

I think the cap is important to level the playing field. The person with the deepest pockets shouldn’t have that kind of advantage in college sports, IMO. “keep up” isn’t really relevant, as in any game, the team that scores the most points wins. Of course, if you’re playing Monopoly, I have a completely different opinion 😜

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Spot on. Trying to control this absent negotiation with a CFB Players Union would be a violation of anti-trust law for certain.

And with the Supremes shutting out the NCAA 9 to Zip, I do not see any attempt to rein in NIL deals happening.

Even with a salary cap agreement with the players, like the NFL, NIL opportunities would not be limited.

Expand full comment
John Canzano's avatar

I think the first step is wrapping your head around what is happening. Part of the issue is that nobody knows what the players are receiving from the collectives. I think it probably needs to be transparent.

Expand full comment
Jen GH's avatar

Definitely 💯

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Transparency and dropping the charade would go a long way

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Who ever said college sports are a free market? FBS sports are a monopoly. A school must be invited to join FBS or the NCAA for that matter. So that is a pretty lame argument. Pro sports faced this same argument and the Supreme Court ruled that pro sports are a legal monopoly and can work together to set rules around compensation. It first ruled that pro sports are not subject to anti-trust law in 1922 in the original Anti-Trust case giving MLB an exemption. The NFL and NBA have subsequently received exemptions. The rulings were tested repeatedly over the years and successfully resulted in free agency as a counter-weight to the power of the Anti-Trust exemptions. But to maintain balance, the Supreme Court has also allowed restrictions on free agency and salary caps. Salary caps and restrictions were further tested in court by the NFLPA union which resulted in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to which courts have never offered any opposition. Why would it be different for the NCAA, likewise a legal monopoly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_collective_bargaining_agreement

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

The 1922 case, which most say was wrongly decided, applies to baseball only. It stands because Congress has not acted and the courts have decided that congressional acquiescence means the court got it “right” when construing the Sherman Act. But it has not been extended to other sports. With the exception of the NFL TV arrangements and a few scattered other issues, other pro sports are subject to the Sherman Act. Congress has created only niche exemptions. Salary caps and the like are lawful because of the “labor exemption,” which applies to all industries, and has a “statutory” and “non-statutory” aspect. Collectively bargained restraints on competition are immune from antitrust scrutiny under the labor exemption. There is no concept of “legal monopoly” that is relevant. In the 1922 case, the Supreme Court dubiously said baseball is not “commerce,” and thus not covered by the Sherman Act. Employer collusion on compensation is illegal, regardless of the market share or market power of the colluding parties. So, for example, it doesn’t matter whether the NFL, or the NCAA has a monopoly in any properly defined market. Collusion on compensation is illegal unless protected by the labor exemption, at least under the analysis of the Kavanaugh opinion. That’s why (a) NCAA limits on NIL are not possible, and (b) college sports are in jeopardy if Congress does not create a new exemption or college athletes do not unionize.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I disagree that the 1922 MLB SC ruling was wrongly decided and that it is not relevant to the modern NCAA. It established a precedent for a sport like the MLB as a legal monopoly which is required to maintain integrity as a sport. All other professional sports have relied on the MLB precedent whether or not they had a similar hearing at the SC. They all exhibit monopoly power over their league and players, through a CBA. It would never work for new teams to be created and jump into a league without invitation as it would constantly disrupt the entertainment aspect that makes team sports viable as a business. Team sports are a lot more like a public utility than a commodity. The 1922 SC was dealing with that reality when it had to make a ruling on a new business concept, the regional professional sports team. It was not a flawed decision, but established a precedent for all future professional sports. So it is likely that the NCAA must respect the evolution of professional sports law since 1922 and must allow the players in each sport to form a union so they can bargain collectively. I am fine with that, too. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than the NIL free-for-all

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Incorrect in various ways.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

That is your opinion, no better or more accurate than mine. If you want to show me how I am incorrect, then offer evidence rather than offering an opinion

Expand full comment