|
|
Post by catalyst82 on Aug 1, 2024 15:13:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by SFP on Aug 2, 2024 15:14:53 GMT -6
This is sure to go to the courts where they'll rule against the NCAA. There's a way around all of this but that will slip if the NCAA doesn't change their ways. They need to just make these students athletes into employees. This way they can better control the potential revenue. The top student athletes may just want to work as a 1099 regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by tribecalledquest2024 on Aug 2, 2024 15:17:39 GMT -6
This is sure to go to the courts where they'll rule against the NCAA. There's a way around all of this but that will slip if the NCAA doesn't change their ways. They need to just make these students athletes into employees. This way they can better control the potential revenue. The top student athletes may just want to work as a 1099 regardless. Doing that won’t affect NIL. |
|
|
|
Post by JMM28 on Aug 2, 2024 16:01:39 GMT -6
This is sure to go to the courts where they'll rule against the NCAA. There's a way around all of this but that will slip if the NCAA doesn't change their ways. They need to just make these students athletes into employees. This way they can better control the potential revenue. The top student athletes may just want to work as a 1099 regardless. No student athlete would be better off as an employee. |
|
|
|
Post by braveupnorth on Aug 5, 2024 8:35:31 GMT -6
This is sure to go to the courts where they'll rule against the NCAA. There's a way around all of this but that will slip if the NCAA doesn't change their ways. They need to just make these students athletes into employees. This way they can better control the potential revenue. The top student athletes may just want to work as a 1099 regardless. The money quote from the article that gives me pause is “Because nobody’s preventing them from entering into a deal with the student-athlete,” he said. “They’re just saying the booster can’t enter into a deal that’s above fair-market value. So the idea that the booster could then sue and say I have somehow been harmed because I’ve been forced to pay less for this individual's services than I want to ... If anything, this saves the booster money." I think boosters may have difficulty establishing standing, but we shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by JMM28 on Aug 5, 2024 14:06:34 GMT -6
This is sure to go to the courts where they'll rule against the NCAA. There's a way around all of this but that will slip if the NCAA doesn't change their ways. They need to just make these students athletes into employees. This way they can better control the potential revenue. The top student athletes may just want to work as a 1099 regardless. The money quote from the article that gives me pause is “Because nobody’s preventing them from entering into a deal with the student-athlete,” he said. “They’re just saying the booster can’t enter into a deal that’s above fair-market value. So the idea that the booster could then sue and say I have somehow been harmed because I’ve been forced to pay less for this individual's services than I want to ... If anything, this saves the booster money." I think boosters may have difficulty establishing standing, but we shall see. A player sues the NCAA because they've been damaged?! |
|
|
|
Post by braveupnorth on Aug 8, 2024 8:34:23 GMT -6
The money quote from the article that gives me pause is “Because nobody’s preventing them from entering into a deal with the student-athlete,” he said. “They’re just saying the booster can’t enter into a deal that’s above fair-market value. So the idea that the booster could then sue and say I have somehow been harmed because I’ve been forced to pay less for this individual's services than I want to ... If anything, this saves the booster money." I think boosters may have difficulty establishing standing, but we shall see. A player sues the NCAA because they've been damaged?! To be clear, I am not advocating for either side. My larger point is that this situation is not as black and white as some seem to think. Not saying it is a sure argument, but again I think the argument would be "you were compensated fairly based on fair-market value. There is no harm". Now, the counter argument is the market is being suppressed. Both difficult pitches in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by JMM28 on Sept 5, 2024 20:17:20 GMT -6
The judge sees things the right way. Can’t just say no collectives….
|
|
