So the NCAA loves NIL because it allows them to keep their warchest?
Sorry, I’m just not buying into the need to dish out billions to players who played before NIL. They voluntarily entered into a contract with the NCAA and their schools under the fully legal conditions and terms of the day. Didn’t like it? They were free to go off and do something different with their lives. And FWIW, I support both NIL (though I think it needs to be regulated) and the transfer portal.
I’m not sure the exact legal theory the plaintiffs are relying on, but this sort of thing isn’t unheard of. Every state has misclassification laws that prevent an employer from calling you an independent contractor to avoid giving you the protection of employment laws (like the minimum wage). People who were misclassified as contractors can sue the employer for wages owed an employee even though they signed on to be contractors.
But those student-athletes were never considered employees of any kind (1099 or W2) and still aren’t though the waters are getting muddy. They were simply getting reduced/waived tuition because they were on a sports team. To my eye, that’s more akin to somebody getting a scholarship at Indiana or Oberlin because they’re a cello prodigy than it is to any type of employee.
If it’s illegal under anti-trust law currently for the NCAA to prohibit NIL (which isn’t a far out there opinion), then it probably was illegal that they did it in the past too. In the case, athletes could be entitled to at least some damages. There’s several assumptions there, but that’s why there is a court case to figure it out
I agree with this. I was said athlete who entered into this contract and refuse to stick out my hand in a me too way
I actually don’t support NIL. There is nothing equitable about it……which is what I thought the NCAA should actually be providing. And I’m in no way a DEI guy either
I’m (hopefully) 7 years from retirement and my first project will be a boom that takes full sim at America’s universities……wish me luck. Haha