Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Sports
Supremes rule against NCAA, 9 to 0
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HFS" data-source="post: 3596124" data-attributes="member: 8862"><p>Some are saying that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be issuing a lot of 9-to-0 rulings lately.</p><p>Is it possible their limited ruling today could open the door to "amateur" college athletes getting some of those sweet, sweet millions from all the network rights and licensing royalties?</p><p></p><p><strong>I can hear the fans now: "But, but....MUH COLLEGE FOOTBALL!"</strong></p><p></p><p>FYI: WSJ link is behind paywall, Deadspin is some kind of lefty media outlet.</p><p></p><p>"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that strict NCAA limits on compensating college athletes violate U.S. antitrust law, a decision that could have broad ramifications for the future of college sports.</p><p>The court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, upheld lower court rulings that said the NCAA unlawfully limited schools from competing for player talent by offering better benefits, to the detriment of college athletes."</p><p><strong><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rejects-ncaas-tight-limits-on-athlete-benefits-compensation-11624285407?mod=mhp" target="_blank">https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rejects-ncaas-tight-limits-on-athlete-benefits-compensation-11624285407?mod=mhp</a></strong></p><p></p><p>"Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion: 'Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate.'"</p><p><strong><a href="https://deadspin.com/even-the-supreme-court-can-see-through-the-ncaa-s-b-s-1847145163" target="_blank">https://deadspin.com/even-the-supreme-court-can-see-through-the-ncaa-s-b-s-1847145163</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed a ruling Monday that provides for an incremental increase in how college athletes can be compensated and also opens the door for future legal challenges that could deal a much more significant blow to the NCAA's current business model.</p><p>Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion, which upheld a district court judge's decision that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education.</p><p><strong><a href="https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation" target="_blank">https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation</a></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HFS, post: 3596124, member: 8862"] Some are saying that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be issuing a lot of 9-to-0 rulings lately. Is it possible their limited ruling today could open the door to "amateur" college athletes getting some of those sweet, sweet millions from all the network rights and licensing royalties? [B]I can hear the fans now: "But, but....MUH COLLEGE FOOTBALL!"[/B] FYI: WSJ link is behind paywall, Deadspin is some kind of lefty media outlet. "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that strict NCAA limits on compensating college athletes violate U.S. antitrust law, a decision that could have broad ramifications for the future of college sports. The court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, upheld lower court rulings that said the NCAA unlawfully limited schools from competing for player talent by offering better benefits, to the detriment of college athletes." [B][URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rejects-ncaas-tight-limits-on-athlete-benefits-compensation-11624285407?mod=mhp[/URL][/B] "Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion: 'Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate.'" [B][URL]https://deadspin.com/even-the-supreme-court-can-see-through-the-ncaa-s-b-s-1847145163[/URL] [/B] The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed a ruling Monday that provides for an incremental increase in how college athletes can be compensated and also opens the door for future legal challenges that could deal a much more significant blow to the NCAA's current business model. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion, which upheld a district court judge's decision that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education. [B][URL]https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation[/URL][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Sports
Supremes rule against NCAA, 9 to 0
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom