Conferences are trying to control compensation

[Retired711]

IMHO, *everyone* should read this article. It discusses how the conferences are trying to keep schools from using state law to evade the compensation limits in the House settlement. It also discusses Deloitte's view of whether previous NIL deals would pass muster under the settlement.

Note that the settlement has *not* received final approval from Judge Claudia Wilken. The remaining dispute is over how the roster limits should be phased in. IMHO, the conferences are going to have to agree to further revisions in the settlement get her approval.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...-rules-with-strict-punishments-005652210.html

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

IMHO, *everyone* should read this article. It discusses how the conferences are trying to keep schools from using state law to evade the compensation limits in the House settlement. It also discusses Deloitte's view of whether previous NIL deals would pass muster under the settlement.

Note that the settlement has *not* received final approval from Judge Claudia Wilken. The remaining dispute is over how the roster limits should be phased in. IMHO, the conferences are going to have to agree to further revisions in the settlement get her approval.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...-rules-with-strict-punishments-005652210.html

This will be a mess.

 

[Retired711]

This will be a mess.

Yep!! First, it would be IMHO an obvious antitrust violation for conferences and schools to (in effect) agree among themselves not to play a certain school. Second, as the article reflects, there is real doubt about whether a state institution can be compelled not to obey state law.

I also see that Deloitte thinks that *some* deals between booster and players will be OK under the settlement. If that is true, then the boosters will likely be able to avoid the restrictions in the settlement. The schools will all be spending $20 million a year and yet schools with boosters with deep pockets will still be able to attract players to a particular school.

Everyone should keep in mind that, even if Judge Wilken approves the settlement, nothing stops an individual outside the settling class (or the Federal government) from bringing an antitrust action of his own. The settlement is just that -- a settlement. It only binds the parties to the settlement -- no one else.

As you say, "this will be a mess." All that's lacking in your comment is an exclamation point!

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

I'm curious about the statement that schools that don't fall in line won't be scheduled. As you stated, this is collusion.

 

[tru2ru1]

I'm curious about the statement that schools that don't fall in line won't be scheduled. As you stated, this is collusion.

Is it collusion that schools will only play other schools that require students be academically eligible?

 

[Retired711]

Is it collusion that schools will only play other schools that require students be academically eligible?

Perhaps, but any court would hold it to be reasonable. (Most restraints on trade will be upheld if a court thinks them reasonable.) I wouldn't be as certain that a court would hold reasonable a restraint on conduct that is specifically allowed by state law.

What it comes down to is that Federal legislation is desperately needed to establish the ground rules and end litigation and uncertainty. That legislation could override ('pre-empt", to use the legal term) state law. But it doesn't seem as though there's any immediate prospect of such legislation. Note that, because the matter does not involve the budget, proposed legislation would be subject to filibuster in the Senate, meaning that the Republicans could not pass such legislation entirely by themselves. Instead, there would have to be support from some Democrats as well.