President Trump urges college sports leaders to return to pre-NIL era: 'I'd like to go exactly back to what we had and ram it through a court'
"While disregarding and disparaging court decisions that have opened a path for athlete compensation, Trump announced plans to release a second executive order — this one “more comprehensive,” he said — that is intended, it appears, to reimplement unlawful policies of the pre-NIL era.
The executive order will be strong enough in its language that Trump expects it to invoke legal challenges. His hope is that the lawsuit and subsequent appeals find favorable judges, he says, that will rule differently than a host of judges who, he says, have “destroyed” college athletics with their deeming of NCAA rules to be in violation of antitrust. And that includes, he exclaimed, the Supreme Court, whose 9-0 decision in the NCAA v. Alston case, though not about compensation specifically, paved the path for the industry’s current unregulated market.
While writing this order — which is expected to be issued in a week, he said — Trump demands that lawmakers continue and expedite negotiations for federal legislation, despite the president himself believing that passage of a bill is virtually impossible because of “lunatics” in Congress, he told the room.
Friday’s meeting, scheduled for an hour, turned into a wild near-two-hour political meltdown of sorts — a president criticizing his enemies: the courts for "destroying" college sports, and congressional Democrats for preventing legislation to pass that might fix it.
The industry is nearing the “point of no return,” Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua told the room, describing football as a “runaway financial train” that is gobbling up resources meant to fund Olympic and women’s sports.
“Lawsuits are killing us,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told the room. “You don’t like a rule, you just go to a local judge.”
Meanwhile, college athletics — its leaders resistant to collective bargaining — twists in the winds of soaring player salaries, unenforceable rules, mounting legal threats and budget deficits.
Present in the room during Friday’s roundtable, House Republican leadership, Speaker Mike Johnson and majority leader Steve Scalise, told dignitaries that they have the necessary votes to pass the SCORE Act and that it should reach the floor for a third attempt at a vote this month. The SCORE Act, a Republican-backed college sports bill, would mostly grant the NCAA and conferences their antitrust protection to enforce rules, prevent athletes from being deemed employees and create a new governance model in college sports.
However, problems brew in the Senate. Even if SCORE passes the House, a long fight awaits in the other chamber, where a 60-vote margin for passage means seven Democrats must vote for legislation that, many of them believe, grants too much power to the conferences and unnecessarily prevents employment."
Trump announced plans to release a second executive order that is intended, it appears, to re-implement unlawful policies of the pre-NIL era.
www.yahoo.com
The Supreme Court on Monday
ruled unanimously that the National Collegiate Athletic Association may not bar modest payments to athletes.
The court upheld a 2019 ruling by a federal district court judge, which in turn was
endorsed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year. The rulings all concern the Sherman Act, which bars monopolies by organizations in the United States.
As they often do, the justices took a measured approach. They chose not to seize a potential opportunity to challenge the NCAA's overall regulations limiting the value of scholarships and other compensation tied to athletic performance, which could have undermined the entire business model of college athletics.
But a concurring opinion by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that such a reckoning for the NCAA and its financial model is likely ahead -- and that at least he eagerly wants it to be so.
The many rich traditions of college sports "cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated," Kavanaugh wrote. "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. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."
Kavanaugh's line of reasoning may suggest where the court might be heading, but it did not prevail Monday. Instead, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the unanimous court, focused his analysis largely on reinforcing the district court's ruling in 2019 and the Ninth Circuit decision last year.
"Some will think the district court did not go far enough," Gorsuch wrote. "By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. Still, some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief.
"At the same time," the decision added, "others will think the district court went too far by undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics. For our part, though, we can only agree with the Ninth Circuit: 'The national debate about amateurism in college sports is important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it. Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law.' That review persuades us the district court acted within the law’s bounds."
The Landscape for Athlete Compensation
The Supreme Court's ruling Monday represents the latest step in a long-standing effort by college athletes to challenge what they believe are unconstitutional (and immoral) restrictions on giving players a bigger share of an enterprise that produces many billions of dollars for colleges, conferences, coaches and the NCAA.
The case considered Monday, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shayne Alston, differs from (but is a relative to) the highly publicized lawsuits over whether athletes should be compensated for use of their name, image and likeness, an issue that is now playing out in state legislatures and potentially Congress.
The Alston case flows from
a 2014 class action challenge by a group of college athletes to the association’s scholarship limits. That case sought to have the courts declare NCAA athletes to be employees whose compensation was being illegally constrained.
As that case and others wended their way through the courts, judges have both given the athletes meaningful victories and reined in their scope and seismic impact.
The 2019 federal court decision, for instance, ruled that the association could legitimately restrict the sports-related compensation that is part of the typical package allowed by the NCAA, including the scholarship, but deemed it an antitrust violation to limit academic-related expenses such as postgraduate scholarships, scientific or technology equipment, academic awards and internships, or study abroad.
The rulings in the lower courts chipped away at the NCAA’s decades-long history of amateurism without blowing it up, in ways that satisfied neither the NCAA nor many advocates for athletes’ rights.
Yet when the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, the athletes chose not to appeal it to the Supreme Court, while the association did -- as Gorsuch describes it, “seeking immunity from the normal operations of the antitrust laws.”
Gorsuch writes that the athletes’ decision not to appeal the association’s other compensation rules gave the Supreme Court the option (which it embraced) to review only the limits on educational benefits.
The early part of Gorsuch’s ruling is a college sports history lesson that makes it clear that money has always been a core element of intercollegiate sports and that “those who run this enterprise profit in a different way than the student-athletes whose activities they oversee.”
The bulk of the decision features Gorsuch, one by one, slapping aside the NCAA’s many objections to the lower courts’ rulings as unfounded, and listing the ways in which the lower courts judiciously balanced the parties’ interests.
The NCAA, for instance, argues that it should have leeway to avoid antitrust scrutiny because the association and its members are not “commercial enterprises” and are engaged in the “societally important non-commercial objective” of providing higher education.
Gorsuch writes, “To the extent it means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade -- that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money -- we cannot agree. This Court has regularly refused materially identical requests from litigants seeking special dispensation from the Sherman Act on the ground that their restraints of trade serve uniquely important social objectives beyond enhancing competition.”
If Gorsuch’s overall message on behalf of the court was that the lower courts had struck a fair balance between the NCAA’s interests and those of the athletes in service of upholding federal antitrust law, Kavanaugh in his concurrence issued more of a threat to the powers that be in big-time college sports.
Kavanaugh notes that while the high court chose in the current case to limit its review to a narrow set of the NCAA’s compensation rules, Monday’s decision tees up a future challenge in which the association would have to “supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, the NCAA may lack such a justification.”
He describes the NCAA’s amateurism argument as “circular and unpersuasive.”
“Specifically, the NCAA says that colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the defining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is that the student athletes are not paid,” Kavanaugh writes.
He adds, “Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.”
