AP: NCAA, conferences face an rust lawsuit

[Winehole23]

The National Collegiate Athletic Association and its five dominant conferences are an "unlawful cartel" that has illegally restricted the earning power of football and men's basketball players while making billions off their labor, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday that seeks to paint big-time college athletics as being in blatant violation of an rust laws.

The suit comes on the eve of the NCAA men's Division I basketball tournament, college sports' most prominent showcase. In addition to the NCAA, the lawsuit targets the Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12, and seeks monetary damages as well as a declaration that the defendants' practices violate federal an rust laws.


"As a result of these illegal restrictions, market forces have been shoved aside and substantial damages have been inflicted upon a host of college athletes whose services have yielded riches only for others," according to the court filing. "This class action is necessary to end the NCAA's unlawful cartel, which is inconsistent with the most fundamental principles of an rust law."


The suit seeks triple damages for the four plaintiffs — Rutgers basketball player Jonathan Moore, Clemson football player Martin Jenkins, Texas-El Paso football player Kevin Perry and California football player William Tyndall — based on the economic harm they say they suffered. The court filing estimated that, for instance, Clemson's athletic department "generated more than $70 million in revenue, the vast majority of which came from football" in 2012 when Jenkins was playing.


It also seeks an injunction to stop the NCAA from prohibiting any of its member ins utions from negotiating to give or providing compensation to football and basketball players and rejected the argument that the current rules ensure compe ive balance.


"Defendants' price-fixing agreement and group boycott is a naked restraint of trade without any pro-compe ive purpose or effect," the suit said.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/suit-...rences/2170646

[Blake]

This should be good.

[JMarkJohns]

Athletes don't need to be paid by the universities, but they should capitalize on name, face, brand without penalty.

That said, the idea athletes are taken advantage of is ludicrous when they receive $200,000 worth of education/room/board/books over 4 years.

But they shouldn't be penalized for capitalizing on own fame independent of the university/program boosters.

[Blake]

Athletes don't need to be paid by the universities, but they should capitalize on name, face, brand without penalty.

That said, the idea athletes are taken advantage of is ludicrous when they receive $200,000 worth of education/room/board/books over 4 years.

But they shouldn't be penalized for capitalizing on own fame independent of the university/program boosters.

At least that much.

[Winehole23]

The continuing debate about whether high-level collegiate basketball and football players should be paid seems to be moving in the direction of these athletes receiving some form of compensation above their scholarship. In the last year we have seen steps towards forming a college athletes' union, and increased rhetoric from the Big Five conferences about the need to start providing increased compensation to athletes. (Of course, a cynic might view the statements by the Big Five conferences as justification for gaining increased control over lucrative television dollars.)


At one extreme, we have folks that advocate for no additional payment beyond the athletic scholarship. An increasingly popular viewpoint is that athletes should be provided an additional living wage type stipend. At the other extreme, we have individuals that advocate the use of a professional sports-type model. For example, Roger Noll used a 50-50 revenue split (similar to that used in the NBA) to value player contributions as part of the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit.


A complicating factor in this debate is that the structure of consumer demand is possibly very different between college and professional sports. Our specific concern is that the affinity between graduates and their colleges may mean that colleges start with more natural and stronger fan bases. As an example, consider the difference between the University of Florida and the city of Jacksonville. A UF graduate is by definition a member of the "Gator Nation". The graduate belongs to a community of graduates that may tend to use the university's football team as a natural focal or bonding point. In contrast, a resident of Jacksonville is supposed to root for the Jaguars merely because of where they live. Of course, this is a simplification, but hopefully our point is clear.


One way to test the preceding conjecture regarding natural and stronger fan bases is to analyze the relationship between team winning percentage and team revenues for both college and professional sports. If the relationship between revenues and wins is the same for the professionals and colleges, then it makes more sense to view the college game as essentially a professional league. If there is no relationship between revenues and wins at the college level, then player quality doesn't matter (and consequently players probably shouldn't be paid).

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-t...254306/@kylenw

[Winehole23]

But, it does appear that the two extreme points of view that we mentioned earlier are misguided. The college players do generate significant revenues, but their degree of responsibility for revenues is far less than the professionals.

One interpretation of our model is that it speaks to the different roles of brand equity in sports revenues. At the pro level, revenues are twice as sensitive to winning rates as at the collegiate level. Our feeling is that college revenues are driven more by the permanent nature of the fan base, and by the brand equity created over time. We have made an earlier argument along these lines, that while Ed O'Bannon should be able to profit from the use of his image, the revenues that would be generated would have as much to do with Kareem Abdul Jabber and Bill Walton as they have to do with Ed O'Bannon. So what should be done? We would like to see a three-way split of revenue. The colleges get their share, the current players get a piece, but the players that built the college brands should also get something. As professors that have seen the difficulties of obtaining an education while playing a major sport, we would like to see some type of program that at a minimum provides educational grants for past players. Furthermore, given that we seem to learn more about the health consequences of big-time football each day, it also seems reasonable to establish a trust fund for future player health issues.

same

[Pelicans78]

Athletes don't need to be paid by the universities, but they should capitalize on name, face, brand without penalty.

That said, the idea athletes are taken advantage of is ludicrous when they receive $200,000 worth of education/room/board/books over 4 years.

But they shouldn't be penalized for capitalizing on own fame independent of the university/program boosters.

I agree with everything you said.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Athletes don't need to be paid by the universities, but they should capitalize on name, face, brand without penalty.

That said, the idea athletes are taken advantage of is ludicrous when they receive $200,000 worth of education/room/board/books over 4 years.

But they shouldn't be penalized for capitalizing on own fame independent of the university/program boosters.

The universities make hundreds of millions of dollars off of them and give them bread crumbs by comparison. It's slave labor, especially given the universities don't even let them pick a worthwhile major.