Toggle sidebar

President Trump's forthcoming executive order on sports

R

Retired711

Heisman
Nov 20, 2001
19,971
10,149
58
The story summarizes an executive order that President Trump is (the story says) about to issue regarding intercollegiate athletics.

I think there are a lot of legal problems with this:

* Can the federal government take away federal funding on the basis of what schools do about intercollegiate athletics except when (as with Title IX) there is a federal statute regulating what schools do with their programs?

*Can the federal government require that schools engage in conduct that violates the antitrust laws (such as limits on transfers) as a condition of federal funding? The President doesn't have the power to override those laws.

This doesn't seem like a legally feasible approach.https://sports.yahoo.com/mens-colle...ing-to-regulate-college-sports-165338120.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: MADHAT1 and BLewis1968
LotusAggressor_rivals

LotusAggressor_rivals

All-American
Oct 11, 2003
16,040
7,820
113
Retired711 said:
The story summarizes an executive order that President Trump is (the story says) about to issue regarding intercollegiate athletics.

I think there are a lot of legal problems with this:

* Can the federal government take away federal funding on the basis of what schools do about intercollegiate athletics except when (as with Title IX) there is a federal statute regulating what schools do with their programs?

*Can the federal government require that schools engage in conduct that violates the antitrust laws (such as limits on transfers) as a condition of federal funding? The President doesn't have the power to override those laws.

This doesn't seem like a legally feasible approach.https://sports.yahoo.com/mens-colle...ing-to-regulate-college-sports-165338120.html
Click to expand...
Of course it's not legally feasible. That doesn't matter anymore.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RUDiddy777, NotInRHouse, Smols and 9 others
Knight Shift

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,565
86,583
113
LotusAggressor_rivals said:
Of course it's not legally feasible. That doesn't matter anymore.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when one administration pushes the limits of what the Executive branch can "get away with." The previous administration got away with things that were not legally feasible, and the next administration looks back and says, hold my keg of beer, and let's try this and see if anyone does anything about it. Won't get into specifics so as to not turn this into a fight.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RUforester72, NotInRHouse, BossNJ and 4 others
R

Retired711

Heisman
Nov 20, 2001
19,971
10,149
58
I'll stay away from the political talk above. Here's the key thing IMHO: the article indicates that the President knows that what's in Executive Order is legally questionable. Nothing in this order is likely to take effect. So this is (to use a word that was used about that silly class action law suit aimed at Rutgers football) performative and nothing else. Perhaps the President thinks it is politically wise to look like he's doing something about this problem when in fact he lacks the legal authority to do what he is trying to do. Or perhaps he is just expressing his opinion just as he was when he said the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians should go back to their original names. I don't know. All I can tell you is that it is highly unlikely the order will change anything that is going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 29PAS, Smols, BillyC80 and 5 others
Knight Shift

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,565
86,583
113
Retired711 said:
I'll stay away from the political talk above. Here's the key thing IMHO: the article indicates that the President knows that what's in Executive Order is legally questionable. Nothing in this order is likely to take effect. So this is (to use a word that was used about that silly class action law suit aimed at Rutgers football) performative and nothing else. Perhaps the President thinks it is politically wise to look like he's doing something about this problem when in fact he lacks the legal authority to do what he is trying to do. Or perhaps he is just expressing his opinion just as he was when he said the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians should go back to their original names. I don't know. All I can tell you is that it is highly unlikely the order will change anything that is going on.
Click to expand...
This Intellectual Property Attorney on X agrees. Always trust the Intellectual Property attorney's view. 😂 ;)

 
N

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,006
12,811
113
This doesn't make sense.
Is the assertion that the NCAA current rules are not as strict as legally permissible?
They keep losing court cases and the rules are already being rolled back to meet the maximum extent permitted by law.

The order, the key parts of which are effective Aug. 1, directs the NCAA to update its rules by Aug. 1 — to the maximum extent permitted by law — to “bring order and stability to the landscape in certain key areas,” a source who has reviewed the document told Yahoo Sports. Most notably, one of those areas is transferring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MADHAT1
R

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,927
22,462
108
Retired711 said:
The story summarizes an executive order that President Trump is (the story says) about to issue regarding intercollegiate athletics.

I think there are a lot of legal problems with this:

* Can the federal government take away federal funding on the basis of what schools do about intercollegiate athletics except when (as with Title IX) there is a federal statute regulating what schools do with their programs?

*Can the federal government require that schools engage in conduct that violates the antitrust laws (such as limits on transfers) as a condition of federal funding? The President doesn't have the power to override those laws.

This doesn't seem like a legally feasible approach.https://sports.yahoo.com/mens-colle...ing-to-regulate-college-sports-165338120.html
Click to expand...
thank god someone is stepping in to do something it just can’t go on the way it is. i applaud the effort.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RUbot, RU206, Dowling's Revenge and 1 other person
N

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,006
12,811
113
"Make your rules as strict as legally permissible"

"The courts already said we crossed the legally permissible line. We legally can't bring more structure."

This like saying "You must drive as fast as legally permissible. I want you to drive 90mph."
Legally permissible is way back there already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU206 and Knight Shift
Knight Shift

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,565
86,583
113
RUGuitarMan1 said:
Deleted political content
Click to expand...
You are usually more measured than this.
In today's partisan times, I find it useful to look past who is making a particular proposal and study the details of the proposal. I dislike the extreme ends of both parties. As an example, I am no fan of AOC, but she recently made a proposal about reigning in the unabated online gambling. I totally agreed with her proposal. Flipping over to this, I think Pres. Trump's proposal has merit, regardless of whether he has the legal authority to enforce the proposal. But as one poster above said, maybe this will spur Congress to take some much needed action.

If we don't begin to try to objectively view reasonable proposals and shut our minds just because one side or someone we dislike made the proposal, little progress will be made in the country. As an example some of what has been done with respect to ultra processed foods has been very positive. But I see a lot of partisan sniping just because a certain person made the proposal who made other proposals they vehemently opposed. This line of thinking makes little sense to me.

Have a pleasant evening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: RUbot, RUforester72, Foads and 5 others
R

RUbacker

Heisman
Dec 5, 2014
15,927
22,462
108
Knight Shift said:
You are usually more measured than this.
In today's partisan times, I find it useful to look past who is making a particular proposal and study the details of the proposal. I dislike the extreme ends of both parties. As an example, I am no fan of AOC, but she recently made a proposal about reigning in the unabated online gambling. I totally agreed with her proposal. Flipping over to this, I think Pres. Trump's proposal has merit, regardless of whether he has the legal authority to enforce the proposal. But as one poster above said, maybe this will spur Congress to take some much needed action.

If we don't begin to try to objectively view reasonable proposals and shut our minds just because one side or someone we dislike made the proposal, little progress will be made in the country. As an example some of what has been done with respect to ultra processed foods has been very positive. But I see a lot of partisan sniping just because a certain person made the proposal who made other proposals they vehemently opposed. This line of thinking makes little sense to me.

Have a pleasant evening.
Click to expand...
good post brother
 
Knight Shift

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,565
86,583
113
RUbacker said:
good post brother
Click to expand...
There is a poster on ignore who will no doubt put me in the bootlicker bucket and tell me I am being phony. IDGAS. As I have said before, I have some major issues with both parties on specific positions, and the song Stuck in the Middle by Stealer's Wheel rings in my head daily. I parse through positions and proposals and see what makes most sense to support or not support. But in either case, I'm not going to any rallies or sending checks to either side. I have hope that the partisan times will eventually subside.

Two verses from a fantastic song by Little Steven (now Little Stevie Van Zandt) ring true:

I am a patriot, and I love my country
Because my country is all I know
I want to be with my family, the people who understand me
I've got nowhere else to go

And I ain't no communist
And I ain't no capitalist
And I ain't no socialist
And I ain't no imperialist
And I ain't no democrat
And I ain't no republican
I only know one party
And it is freedom
---

Hope everyone has a peaceful holiday with family and friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUforester72 and phs73rc77gsm83
R

RUAldo

All-Conference
Sep 11, 2008
4,895
3,497
113
What would be really interesting is if the Supreme Leader simply said NIL is done, no payments outside of scholarships, one transfer - pretty much back to the old world. Hypothetically and Take lawsuits out of the equation, what would all these athletes do about it = NOTHING! They gonna form their own league? Refuse to play in college? Without universities these athletes have no platform. Nada. Would love to see the athlete Armageddon that ensues.
 
bac2therac

bac2therac

Hall of Famer
Jul 30, 2001
247,182
176,828
113
yesrutgers01 said:
the government has bigger issues-90% of tge population give 2 real sh@TS about college sports outside of gambling.
let’s worry more about $4 gas and 30k a year healthcare
Click to expand...
Ridiculous post...its an issue that was on his plate. He gathered a group of interested parties for guidance. There are congressmen coming up with proposals. Congress has to take action.

Its not about Trump. Its about fixing the issue. This EO wont stand but its a step foward in moving forward
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RUbot, Sweet Pea's Corner, MCRU93 and 2 others
MrsScrew

MrsScrew

All-Conference
Jan 17, 2023
594
1,287
93
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift, phs73rc77gsm83 and bac2therac
R

RUAldo

All-Conference
Sep 11, 2008
4,895
3,497
113
MrsScrew said:
Seems that the conferences are supporting the presidents EO. Quotes from BIG, ACC, SEC & Big12 commissioners included in the article.

www.foxnews.com

Power 4 college sports conferences react to Trump's latest executive order

Leaders of the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 support Trump's executive order on college sports and are pushing Congress to pass the SCORE Act quickly.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Even the P4 know they are F’d at the current rate of change. Other than a few elite football programs, everyone is losing money and the transfer portal holds them all hostage. If college football was the real world most of these programs would have been shutdown as failed businesses or filed for bankruptcy. At this point, make them all operate like a real pro team or sports business. Only they can’t because ticket prices would skyrocket, attendance would plummet, and corporate sponsors would laugh because they actually want ROI unlike sucker donors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,057
15,441
72
The problem is not NIL, it’s the fact that we went from NIL to all out pay-for-play in a heartbeat.

The time for regulation would have been at the onset of NIL. Do we even discuss Name, Image, and Likeness anymore?

Actual NIL seems to have vanished into thin air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrsScrew
R

RUAldo

All-Conference
Sep 11, 2008
4,895
3,497
113
BillyC80 said:
The problem is not NIL, it’s the fact that we went from NIL to all out pay-for-play in a heartbeat.

The time for regulation would have been at the onset of NIL. Do we even discuss Name, Image, and Likeness anymore?

Actual NIL seems to have vanished into thin air.
Click to expand...
Good point - and corporations are not going to fund pay-for-play because executives have businesses to run and fiduciary duties. So that means sucker donors are getting all the fundraising calls because J&J will never be able to get their Board to approve payments to random RU athletes in exchange for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyC80
N

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,006
12,811
113
RUAldo said:
Good point - and corporations are not going to fund pay-for-play because executives have businesses to run and fiduciary duties. So that means sucker donors are getting all the fundraising calls because J&J will never be able to get their Board to approve payments to random RU athletes in exchange for nothing.
Click to expand...

When is it on the "suckers" to say no?
The only reason this is a peoblem is because college fans allow it to be.
They want to play pretend owner.

You dont see the Giants putting out reports "We want to fire Daboll but don't have the money for his buyout. Fans will have to donate and cover the amount."
"Chiefs can only offer Mahomes $15m/yesr under the salary cap. Fans will need to donate and get him an additonal $10m/year."

The salary cap is now set at approx $20m per school.
Fans just don't want to abide by that.
They want to play pretend owner and pay to exceed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
bac2therac

bac2therac

Hall of Famer
Jul 30, 2001
247,182
176,828
113
DJ Spanky said:
Folks, I've cleaned up the thread as I do believe this is a relevant conversation to have. Please stop with the partisan bickering, I'd rather not lock the thread or send it to die on the CE Board.
Click to expand...
Thanks..this issue is a core issue of college sports and we need to discuss it here
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUbacker
MADHAT1

MADHAT1

Heisman
Apr 1, 2003
31,395
16,240
113
bac2therac said:
Ridiculous post...its an issue that was on his plate. He gathered a group of interested parties for guidance. There are congressmen coming up with proposals. Congress has to take action.

Its not about Trump. Its about fixing the issue. This EO wont stand but its a step foward in moving forward
Click to expand...
the order was for show, Congress must do the work and make what they do court approved.
I will give Trump credit for putting the issue in motion and his EO was a good way to force the issue.
The August date gives the NCAA time to come up with a plan Congress can approve and gives Congress a time limit to get their *** in gear to be working with the NCAA instead of looking to pass the buck and claim it's the NCAA's problem to solve.
In my opinion, Trump's EO is far better than just letting the issue be talked about without anything being done about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
R

RUAldo

All-Conference
Sep 11, 2008
4,895
3,497
113
NickRU714 said:
When is it on the "suckers" to say no?
The only reason this is a peoblem is because college fans allow it to be.
They want to play pretend owner.

You dont see the Giants putting out reports "We want to fire Daboll but don't have the money for his buyout. Fans will have to donate and cover the amount."
"Chiefs can only offer Mahomes $15m/yesr under the salary cap. Fans will need to donate and get him an additonal $10m/year."

The salary cap is now set at approx $20m per school.
Fans just don't want to abide by that.
They want to play pretend owner and pay to exceed it.
Click to expand...
Agree - the suckers are making this whole debacle worse. Would love to see the IRS make donations to players non-deductible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
R

Rutgers Chris

All-American
Nov 29, 2005
5,046
5,906
97
I look forward to what’s likely to be one of the most watched final fours ever adding to the faux crisis in college athletics.
 
AdventureHasAName

AdventureHasAName

All-Conference
Mar 1, 2022
1,761
1,920
113
BillyC80 said:
The problem is not NIL, it’s the fact that we went from NIL to all out pay-for-play in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
Except everyone with a heartbeat knew this was exactly what was going to happen before the Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom) wrecked the previous system. So ... NIL was the problem.
 
N

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
14,006
12,811
113
AdventureHasAName said:
Except everyone with a heartbeat knew this was exactly what was going to happen before the Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom) wrecked the previous system. So ... NIL was the problem.
Click to expand...

The precious system where schools with more money paid to get players.
Where the schools with the most money had an advantage over other schools.
That system sounds familiar.

So NIL wasn't the problem.......

Its fans and "boosters" wanting to play pretend owner.
 
AdventureHasAName

AdventureHasAName

All-Conference
Mar 1, 2022
1,761
1,920
113
NickRU714 said:
The precious system where schools with more money paid to get players.
Where the schools with the most money had an advantage over other schools.
That system sounds familiar.

So NIL wasn't the problem.......

Its fans and "boosters" wanting to play pretend owner.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you want to pretend what we currently have is better than what it replaced ...that's on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom