The schools and NCAA fear that if their rules on this topic were deemed by the court to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, schools would adopt a very liberal definition of “educational expenses” and open the floodgates to more elaborate compensation than a full-cost-of-attendance scholarship (which NCAA rules didn’t allow schools to give until after the plaintiffs’ victory in O’Bannon v. What makes this interesting is that the original ruling decreed that schools should not be allowed to collude to place a cap on anything that would be considered an educational expense. Staples: The Alston case is about whether the schools that make up the NCAA, which compete in the market for athletes, are allowed to work together to place a cap on what compensation schools are allowed to provide athletes. It’s almost like two parallel tracks reaching different parts of the same town. This case is about what schools can provide directly to their athletes. Certain states, such as Florida, still have state NIL laws scheduled to take effect this summer. No matter what happens with this Supreme Court ruling, NIL reform can and will still happen. Whoever the next viral UCLA gymnast is will get to cash in on that. Congress will eventually move forward with federal legislation that will allow college athletes to - at a minimum - receive compensation from third parties, sponsors and others for their own names, images and likenesses. Those federal bills are still floating around. Congress are about what athletes are allowed to take from everyone but the schools.Īuerbach: Yes, the first super-important important piece of this whole deal is to understand that it is different from what’s happening with Congress. Essentially, the case before the Supreme Court is about what the schools are allowed to give athletes, and the laws being discussed by the states and the U.S. That is a separate issue, but the result of this case may help guide how the NCAA rules regarding athletes making money off their name, image and likeness rights ultimately change. These rules govern whether college athletes are allowed to endorse products, monetize social media channels or otherwise profit from their notoriety. This case is not to be confused with the name, image and likeness (NIL) laws being debated in the houses of Congress in Washington or being passed by various state legislatures. Staples: We need to start by distinguishing the issues being argued in this case and the equally noteworthy issues being discussed in the legislative branches at the state and federal levels. (In plain English.) Let’s break down what’s at stake. Andy Staples and Nicole Auerbach convened to discuss the history of the issue, the expected arguments and the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |