Supreme Court unanimously rules that NCAA amateur regulations are violating federal antitrust laws

Right now it sounds bigger than it is, but it's pretty much a major shot across the bow that amateurism in college sports is actually illegal as currently defined. Would expect sweeping changes as soon as next school year.

The Supreme Court, however, has signaled that they are ready to take on the NCAA at large and are willing to effectively blow it up, as said in their finding today.

Forums: 
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

So all the hardees coupons are legal to give to cruits?

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

That last paragraph is a Duesy. Change is a comin'

It's an unwritten law that it's my lunch pail. I've issued the challenge. If someone outworks me, they can get it.
Darryl Tapp

The NCAA is not above the law.

Hahaha. First time for everything!

So they're like UNC?

Take the shortest route to the ball and arrive in bad humor.

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.

Except for unpaid internships.

I'm curious to see how this decision will be used with respect to *that* ridiculous concept.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Are they still pretty common? I just haven't encountered any in my very tiny knothole of the professional world

I can't speak for all industries, but unpaid internships are still pretty common in my sector of the software world. Unless things have changed, unpaid summer internships were very popular all over the NRV.

Edited for clarity

I think the question was in regard to the unpaid part. Not sure if your answer was.

It was. I run into unpaid internships all the time.

Of course you know that unpaid internships have value right? If you intern at Goldman Sachs for free and it gets you an interview there at the very least, that has more "value" than working as a bank teller for 15 bucks an hour, hoping that stands out on a resume. Unpaid internships are not without "value", that's why people do them.

Except that is exactly one of the 7 tests for determining primary beneficiary.

Unpaid internships are exploitative and often used to displace paid jobs. If someone is producing, they should be paid.

From a legal perspective, an unpaid internship has a higher bar to meet than a paid internship. If I have an unpaid intern the I can't have them go fetch coffee, that is illegal. If they are paid I can have them get coffee, run errands etc. Unpaid internships have to show they meet an educational standard for the intern because they are their to learn the role they are in.

Having said that, it doesn't stop companies trying to abuse them.

Unpaid internships perpetuate inequities. Not everyone can afford to take an unpaid summer internship even if they are highly qualified. So you end up with the same groups of people getting these positions to set them up for later success.

"That move was slicker than a peeled onion in a bowl of snot." -Mike Burnop

Unpaid internships also have to provide legitimate experience, not just coffee bitch for middle management.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

This right here. The most annoying thing with internships from an employer perspective is, in many instances, they are only around for a short period of time, so the amount of training it would take to get them up to speed on substantive issues wouldn't be worth it. So they end up doing menial or time-consuming "busy work" like filing documents, running errands, etc. It's not great experience, yet more and more employers are making them mandatory in order to get entry-level jobs. It's ridiculous.

I think the employer isn't trying hard enough if they can't find a portion of a project that an untrained person can't complete in 10 or 12 weeks. Granted, the intern is going to need a lot of guidance but new employees do, too.

And all internships should be paid.

Agreed. In many instances, it's not great experience that will help you at a job down the road, so employers either need to deemphasize the "value" of an unpaid internship on a resume, or start paying people a fair wage to do their grunt work.

I manage a group of IT folks responsible for our infrastructure that supports our on premises applications. We partner with our local University for a co-op program, that is a part of their education - the students are required to complete internships as a part of their degree. Because of this partnership and requirement, we are able to take advantage of double-block internships, that last six months. I have 3-4 interns at a time, staggered to start throughout the year so I never have a completely new group. These are paid positions - but not as much as the regular IT staff.

We have invested in a pretty thorough training program, and because I always have experienced interns around when the new ones come in, there is a lot of peer training in their work. My interns get experience in Windows and Linux operating systems, as well as Oracle and SQL database management. When they start, they do relatively simple and mundane work supporting the systems, until they get up to speed. Once that happens they graduate to more complex work, even supplementing my regular staff in handling lower priority incident tickets. Its a win/win, because my high paid System Engineers and BA's spend their time on continuous improvement projects to make our environment better, while my interns do the day to day. They get real experience in a corporate environment, I get a group of great kids that I get to mold for the future. We are constantly one of the higher rated internships, and most of my new interns are recruited by my outgoing ones. A few of my program graduates have stuck around and were hired as a part of my permanent staff, but most end up out in the workforce working for some pretty prestigious Tech companies.

Not all internships are getting coffee and washing the bosses cars. We invested a little in our program, and it pays dividends to both my organization and the interns.

Success is not pie, if you are honest about it.

Success is cake?
Being really successful having your cake and eating it too?

I think unpaid internships do pay market value. Few interns actually provide real value to a company. It's more of a try out than anything else.

TL;DR - Unpaid Intern = Walk On

Twitter me

Wholeheartedly disagree. Internships can and should be structured to allow the intern to contribute meaningfully. And it's not just a way for an employer to try out a potential employee. It's also an opportunity for the employee to try out the employer. And in tight labor markets, the potential employees have the leverage.

The theory that their product is defined by not paying workers their fair market rate

That's a very interesting/insightful way to summarize the NCAA.

Twitter me

Not to sidetrack the thread, but the NCAA literally used an old constitutional amendment tied to slavery as their defense of amateurism rules. South Park did a whole episode over it (Baby basketball or something like that? Cartman was swimming in a chocolate pool, I think).

The mental gymnastics to defend their structure has been rather eye opening.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Crack Baby Athletic Association

...and Cartman had a hot tub full of poutine

KFC Gravy, but yeah.

Old sigline: I've been cutting back on the drinking.

New Sigline: lol it's football season.

OMG how did I forget that. Leg

I am somewhat curious as to if this could have been entirely avoided had the NCAA partnered with EA games to provide a free copy of each game to every division one scholarship athlete for men's basketball and football. Maybe throw in the latest console as well.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

I doubt it, but it might've delayed it a couple years. I think the other big thing that happened was athletes that had successful YouTube channels could not monetize them. With the massive amounts of money flowing to social media accounts, it wasn't going to be long before college athletes wanted a piece of the pie without hurting their amateur status.

As they close the book on their ruling they look across the bench at the fine men and women running the IRS and say, you know what to do.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Time to review the old 501(c)(3)

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

Seems like soon it will be impossible to provide distinguishable legal definitions of "amateur" and "professional".

WSJ had a good reaction piece:

The decision doesn't open up a world of direct, unlimited pay for college athletes, an issue that wasn't before the court. Instead, the justices said the NCAA must allow colleges to recruit athletes by offering them additional compensation and benefits, as long as they are tied to education.

That means schools could offer compensation beyond the cost of attending college, such as scholarships for graduate or vocational schools, internships, computer equipment and study-abroad programsโ€”and limited cash awards for athletes, potentially nearly $6,000 for now, who do well in the classroom.

Twitter me

There seems to be some disagreement on what this means between judges. At one point they talk about educational materials like laptops and bonuses of $6k for classroom results. But then Kavanaugh talks about fair market value and to me that is WAY different than $6k.

Once you are talking about market value it become very hard to gage is the value recieved by a scholarship. Northwestern is one of the most expensive FBS schools, so NW players get a scholarship worth more than a VT scholarship dollars wise. But it would be hard to argue that you get better coaching than at Bama, so what is that value?

The way I've seen it explained is that this ruling only specifically prevents the NCAA from limiting education-related compensation, but the Supreme Court basically said that if a challenge to broader compensation limits was brought to the court the NCAA would lose.

Goddammit. Cheers.

I'm just glad we agree.

Of note, Kavanaugh wrote a concurrent opinion. Exactly to your point, they broadly agree on compensation, Kavanaugh is just more open to expanding it beyond the scope of what was actually in this suit.

The reason it's getting at least equal attention is because it lays a framework for future challenges to the NCAA on a broader level, if a suit were to specifically address those things. May be tighter than 9-0 next time, but give it 5 years and I'd bet the NCAA gets smacked even harder.

Can you even imagine the founding fathers creating SCOTUS and imagining the cases it would decide? I bet they didn't envision it being used to decide that athletes can get paid for tossing around a pigskin in college

I mean, SCOTUS has heard some bonkers cases from disputes between rival ferrymen, telling a guy he can't grow wheat to make his own bread, and countless train cases

Here lies It's a Stroman Jersey I Swear, surpassed in life by no one because he intercepted it.

I dont think it went the the scotus, but Mass. Supreme Court had to rule on whether a taco is a sandwich. Its not.

So you're saying Kavanaugh is a Bama fan?

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Whoa, let's not get political here /s

SEC players best get some accountants tout suite. Those initial tax filings will be interesting

How does this work with Title IX? Does the same compensation need to be afforded to every athlete in every sport? NIL makes sense to me because it's just up to the individual athlete to "earn" but an increase in compensation to a group of players will be interesting and complicated.

Also, it definitely sounds like Gorsuch was saying "hey anybody that comes in here and says the NCAA shouldn't exist is probably going to win". Going to be an interesting next few years.

For this specific ruling, I believe all additional educational benefits would need to be the same. For NIL, third parties are paying the athletes, not the schools, so there is no Title IX issue.

I am curious how this works for partial scholarships. If a school can now give players laptops, then how does that work for partials? They give them half the cost of a laptop? That seems against the spirit of education to me.

I am curious how this works for partial scholarships. If a school can now give players laptops, then how does that work for partials? They give them half the cost of a laptop? That seems against the spirit of education to me.

They would just cut a laptop in half and give it to two students with partial scholarships. Obviously.

I would guess it would work however the cost of attendance benefits works now.