The Antitrust Suit That Scares the Hell Out of the NCAA...

“When college recruits agree to participate in Division 1 sports, they sign a release form that gives the NCAA the right to use their names and images in perpetuity.” I wish such clear contractual language would end the discussion.

These kids all signed a contract to get a free education in exchange for (among other things) media rights. A vanishingly small percentage of college athletes could ever earn enough with these rights to cover the years of free tuition and coaching they received. If a star player thinks his rights of publicity are that valuable, he always has the option of playing in the CFL until he’s eligible for the NFL.

Ignoring that, it’s difficult to have a system that compensates for media rights without destroying amateurism. If players are to be compensated for the use of their likenesses, they’ll be payed for their playing time in college (this would give a nice advantage to teams that are always on national tv). You’ll have to provide disproportionate compensation to the players appearing more often (after all, it would be taking advantage of Colt McCoy to use a contract of adhesion to grant him the same payments as John Paul Floyd), and that presents its own set of recruiting issues.

I’ve heard suggestions that they could simply pay the players for use of their likeness after graduation, but this presents its own slew of problems. In order for ESPN to show a replay of the 2011 national championship game, they’d have to go through the roster and figure out which players have graduated (making them eligible for payment) and which are still on the team (making them screwed). Because older games will have a higher percentage of players who have graduated, it would make it more expensive to show old games than new ones. Current games have orders of magnitude more revenue potential than seasons-old replays; it’s hard to claim the mantle of fairness while denying players the right to profit from their most profitable performances.

In sum: they bought their tickets; they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ’em crash.

Then remove the scholarship and let the players pay for college, room, etc. Then they would appreciate the opportunity they were handed to display their skill set.

This is just a can of worms. Players need to stopped. Most people who complete college have to do internships are begin in jobs that sorta further launch potential careers. So if you close a million dollar contract do you go to your employer and say I want more money. Thay need a dose of reality. Such babies…

A free education and opportunity to display talents as an interview/internship and now this…. just crazy. Then to come back and want more money after a pro career is CRAZY. Then make them pay back tuition and SHARE THE COST OVERHEAD OF THE SPORT(salaries, buildings, maintenance, etc. Then it is not so profitable.

I read about this case in Bleak House.

Oil companies and land owners have a similiar scenario that is used to resolve such conflicts. If a land owner refuses to lease the rights to the land for oil to a company they can still drill off land site and still pull oil reserves from under the land owners. Resolution:

Make the refusing land owners busness partners. Profit after all expenses are met for drilling, maintenance, repair and general business cost. It is amazing how that seems to work.

This is not something to worry about. NCAA will put the brakes with the contract and worse scenario make them a business unit that endures cost. Then they will stop the madness of washed up pro career players wanting a free ride.

" Most people who complete college have to do internships are begin in jobs that sorta further launch potential careers. So if you close a million dollar contract do you go to your employer and say I want more money. "

We’re not talking about “most people.”

We’re talking about people who’s ability to earn money coincides with college, and doesn’t usually last too long after that.

We’re also talking about companies using the likeness of athletic superstars to earn billions of dollars.

Are you really going to say that it’s a fair trade for an athlete like Durant to give up his likeness in perpetuity? A fair arrangement would be negotiating for a share in post-college earnings. It’s insane to think that these athletes, many of whom have very short careers, don’t get to see a dime of any post-college earnings of their likeness. If they are top tier athletes, they more than earn their keep in college.

The perpetuity part is ridiculous. They should be able to use a player’s image while he or she is under scholarship. If they want to use their image or name afterwards then the athlete should be paid some sort of residual depending on the use.

I look at it from a scenario more akin to acting. Actors receive compensation every time a commercial is shown, although, there are different scales of compensation for instance, a speaking part is compensated more than a non-speaking part etc.

Schools already track playing time, so I don’t think it would be all that hard to compensate players based on their PT, for replay’s of games after they graduate. So what if games become more expensive as players graduate. Why do you care if ESPN has to shell out some of its billions to the employees that it is currently taking advantage of?

In my opinion any argument regarding the difficulty of tracking these things is disingenuous.

Although, it seems to me, research assistants pretty much sign over all rights to their “research” and subsequent profits to the university, why should athletes be any different? Essentially, they are utilizing the Universities facilities, name recognition, fan base, coaches, etc.

That said, I’m in favor of athletes receiving compensation for the use of their likeness after they graduate.

The NCAA is probably hoping Vaccaro will die prior to a trial date.

these kids all signed a contract to get a free education in exchange for (among other things) media rights.

They signed a contract….where the price for their wages was fixed by a cartel….in exchange for media rights.

That’s the definition of an antitrust law violation.

I used to actually be on this side of the argument. BUt it doesn’t hold up. Once you make the “free education” argument, you’ve basically crossed the line into arguing that they are being compensated for their labor…once you’re there, you’re arguing in favor of a price-fixing, monopsonistic cartel. ANd it’s hard, very hard, to win an antitrust argument (or any ethical argument) from that angle.

Although, it seems to me, research assistants pretty much sign over all rights to their "research" and subsequent profits to the university, why should athletes be any different? Essentially, they are utilizing the Universities facilities, name recognition, fan base, coaches, etc.

Becuase researchers can bargain for whatever consideration they want and don’t have their wages fixed at zero by a cartel.

Of course, research assistants are paid for their work beyond any compensation they may have gotten from the department in terms of tuition or room and board. I am sure there are exceptions, but when I was in grad school, and every graduate student I have worked with subsequently, gets paid a stipend beyond tuition if they are an RA, GA, or TA. I believe even doctoral theses can be turned into books by their authors without having to compensate the university for any of the original research that forms the basis of the work.

I always thought the student employee model was a perfectly workable one to apply to student athletes.

Love that USF jersey. My dad was coming in on a full ride basketball scholarship as Bill Russell and KC Jones were leaving.

"When college recruits agree to participate in Division 1 sports, they sign a release form that gives the NCAA the right to use their names and images in perpetuity." I wish such clear contractual language would end the discussion.

In perpetuity… that’s a sign of a contract of adhesion. They have no practical alternative to pro ball in football or basketball, which happen to be the sports on which the NCAA and its most prominent members make the bulk of their money.

Ricky, once players become employees, they gain other rights, such as workmen’s comp. The NCAA and the individual schools don’t want that.

I know the NCAA doesn’t want athletes to gain employee rights. I am merely saying there is a model in place where students engage in activities that often create a profit for the university and said students are financially compensated beyond tuition and room and board. People seem to act like paying athletes is absurd, but there are millions of people who were paid, while students, to work for a university’s benefit.

It is – at best – halfway through its torturous path through the court system

More like halfway through its tortious path amirite?

Just curious, but where does all the money the NCAA earns on these rights and the television contracts actually go?

It seems to me on the legal principle of [italics here] prima facie commonsi senseco [end italics] that a cartel has been established which ensures 1.) there is no other outlet for their product; 2.) they don’t have to pay market rate to those who actually produce the product; and 3.) the producers of the product are forced under prior restraint from ever profiting from their efforts.
Cue Judy Holliday (I do not acknowledge the remake).

I wish I could take this particular can of worms fishing with me. I’d never run out of bait and could catch some humongous catfish (or more likely, feed the perch forever).

“Amateurism.” What the hell is that when such vast sums of money are being generated by those who have a vested interest in “protecting amateurism”?

Ricky, I’m with you. These companies can use a players image while on scholarship but after may have to pay out.

“Just curious, but where does all the money the NCAA earns on these rights and the television contracts actually go?”

Mack Brown’s salary?

I kid, I kid (sort of)…

Loved Sonny Vaccaro’s exchange with the sanctimonious prick:

"We want to put our materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that is to buy your school… or buy your coach."

Commission member Dr. Bryce Jordan (former interim President of the University of Texas 1970-71), sharply asked,

"Why, should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?"

Vaccaro quickly shot back,

"They shouldn’t, sir," he replied. "You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them and there’s not one of you in this room who’s going to turn down any of our money."

"You’re going to take it. I can only offer it."

Just a matter of time before this house of cards comes tumbling down. All of the universities have sold their souls for revenues and yet continue to act like it is just amateur student athletics? Please.

This is all very interesting but why have we not heard more about it in the national media? Until this story picks up some steam it will be all the easier to squash in some backroom deal somewhere.

I feel that the complaints are legit and the resolution could solve even bigger problems for the NCAA, et al. Instead of all the potential issues with paying athletes while in school just pay them after school for using their likenesses. Hell, maybe even tie it into years played to keep players in school and raising graduation rates! I’m sure there are some caveats but I see it as mostly a win win.

Contracts of adhesion are perfectly enforceable as long as they are not unconscionable. Any time you buy a TV at Best Buy, you enter into a contract of adhesion. Every time you sign up for a credit card, you enter into a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is simply where one party has a dominant bargaining position and can impose its chosen terms on the other party—the contract is still enforceable.

I see no reason why asking a kid to give up media rights tied to one aspect of 4-6 years of his life is unconscionable when the kid gets 4-6 years of college tuition, books, etc. in return. It may not be a free-market bargain, but it surely isn’t crazy. Now whether the NCAA has an antitrust problem is another issue.

The CLC antitrust suit is more interesting to me. If they are exercising their monopoly power (and an 80% market share certainly constitutes monopoly power) to eliminate customer choices, they have a big problem.

I see no reason why asking a kid to give up media rights tied to one aspect of 4-6 years of his life is unconscionable when the kid gets 4-6 years of college tuition, books, etc. in return.

If the rights were limited to the years he received the benefits, I would go with you. But the high D-I/BCS schools barter these kids through school while bringing in a mountain of cash. If there were another legitimate way for the players to develop their skills for the pro level, the schools never could pull off this system in this form.

This article makes me seriously consider the LLM in sports law program that I just heard about.

If the athletes do not like the contract then they can try to get the professional level without the NCAA. Good luck.

Texoz said
“We’re also talking about companies using the likeness of athletic superstars to earn billions of dollars. "

Texoz, what company makes billions. I would like to know what companies net billions??? I want the stock of that company.