(05-08-2020 12:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (05-07-2020 11:23 PM)chester Wrote: (05-07-2020 02:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: This indicates the likelihood that there will be a hearing on the matter before the full committee and that the committee will be the launch point for any bill that originates in the Senate. A Commerce subcommittee held a hearing on this issue in February that included live testimony from NCAA President Mark Emmert.
Rep. Mark Walker introduced his NCAA-unfriendly bill 14 months ago. To date, it has only 8 co-sponsors and hasn't been given a hearing, never will. Shows what a little lobbying by the NCAA and the conferences can do.
Clearly the NCAA has figured out the only way the sport survives in any form even resembling its current model is to get an anti-trust exemption. The letter basically says the NCAA has a long way to go in order to obtain that type of carve out. That said---it does appear to offer a hint as to the path college sports will need to take if they want that type of legislative carve out.
Oh yeah, no doubt. That's their last hope...
As one who would prefer a free NIL market, I was disappointed to read
this letter to Emmert from Sens. Murphy and Booker
reported by SI. It seems to suggest those two would be in support of an exemption in exchange for more comprehensive reform.
But in Murphy's case, at least,
it doesn't appear as though he's interested in helping grant the NCAA anything beyond the legal ability to regulate (to some degree) a NIL market:
Quote:And the NCAA wants Congress to give it total power of athletes' compensation. That should be a non-starter.
And if anyone doubts the NCAA is after more than the legal authority to regulate NIL, think again. From
their recent report:
Quote:The Association's attempts to defend its amateurism [sic] rules from antitrust attack have not always been successful, however. Even as it affirmed the beneficial effects of the NCAA's amateurism [sic] rules in general, the Ninth Circuit’s O'Bannon decision endorsed the notion that plaintiffs can use federal antitrust law to attempt to "prove" that there are better ways of preserving amateurism [sic] than current NCAA rules. This has led to another round of litigation in which plaintiffs have attempted to use the antitrust laws as a vehicle to second guess the Division I membership on the details of the Division I financial aid rules. The subcommittee is concerned that these sorts of antitrust challenges will continue, and will interfere with the Association's ability to effectively and efficiently regulate intercollegiate athletics contests between its members.
The subcommittee's review of this litigation history has led it to conclude that the threat of antitrust lawsuits will continue to impinge on the membership's ability to investigate and adopt common and adequate solutions to pressing issues facing college athletics. For this reason, the subcommittee believes it is appropriate and advisable for the Association to seek an exemption from federal and state antitrust laws.
Of course, their referring to the the
Alston case here, and IMO, that's their biggest concern. Everything's now NIL, NIL, NIL, but their more concerned about their ability to continue to cap direct compensation.
And Coog, you and I and many others here know that there are at least some schools in the Cartel (namely the Big 12) who want to deny coaches access to a free market and to limit each other's spending on facilities.
So, the Cartel pretty much (or darn near) wants a
blanket antitrust exemption to do whatever the heck they like.
Am expecting their witnesses at the next hearing to shy away from the term "antitrust exemption," preferring instead the NCAA's latest Orwellian Newspeak "safe harbor."
Said every criminal ever: Where's our safe harbor?
/
Possible Federal NIL Legislation Takes Another Step Forward
