Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Basketball
Topic:  A different take on NIL

Topic:  A different take on NIL
Author
Message
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 12:52:59 PM 
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 12:55:54 PM 
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?
Back to Top
  
Day Tripper
General User

Member Since: 1/23/2007
Post Count: 104

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 1:24:09 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


They won't be paying them very long if they are not profitable.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 1:28:12 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


A company that doesn't pay people to work, won't be a company.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 3:00:02 PM 
Day Tripper wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


They won't be paying them very long if they are not profitable.


Uber just had their first ever quarter of profitability last quarter. Boeing isn't profitable.

Lyft, Pinterest, Snapchat, Zillow, and Slack has never been profitable. Revlon has unprofitable years regularly. ADT, Spotify, and RiteAid aren't profitable.

They've all been paying employees for a long time. They'll all continue to pay employees for a long time.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 3:03:00 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


A company that doesn't pay people to work, won't be a company.


There are also labor laws that require them to do so.

But my question was more: what does profitability have to do with compensation?
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 3:53:57 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


A company that doesn't pay people to work, won't be a company.


There are also labor laws that require them to do so.

But my question was more: what does profitability have to do with compensation?


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.

“Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion (141 S. Ct. 2141 at 2168).

Last Edited: 8/10/2023 3:59:35 PM by Alan Swank
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,751

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 4:42:26 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Should companies only have to pay employees if they're profitable?


A company that doesn't pay people to work, won't be a company.


There are also labor laws that require them to do so.

But my question was more: what does profitability have to do with compensation?


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.

“Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion (141 S. Ct. 2141 at 2168).



Kavanaugh, the man who is fastly becoming known for making some of the poorest opinions in Court History, even by his own conservative justices.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 5:42:55 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.



Last Edited: 8/10/2023 5:50:13 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 8:06:08 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 8:27:31 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?



Last Edited: 8/10/2023 8:35:57 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/10/2023 9:50:18 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?





If an athlete goes to a school on his or her own dime and can sign a deal to post on FB or Instagram, go for it. Just don't ask me or the students at that school or the tax payers of the state to pay for the cost of the business that allows him or her to do that.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,111

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 12:17:52 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?





If an athlete goes to a school on his or her own dime and can sign a deal to post on FB or Instagram, go for it. Just don't ask me or the students at that school or the tax payers of the state to pay for the cost of the business that allows him or her to do that.



Why not? Is it OK for the taxpayers and students through increased tuition and fees to pay for a Taj Mahal of student center that one of my cousins from Minnesota (sorry SBH) once referred to as more a palace than the student center at the U of M?

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 4:05:47 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?





If an athlete goes to a school on his or her own dime and can sign a deal to post on FB or Instagram, go for it. Just don't ask me or the students at that school or the tax payers of the state to pay for the cost of the business that allows him or her to do that.



Students already fund the athletic budget through fees. That's where the lions share of the athletic budget comes from.

And more of that is spent on coach and staff salary than on athletic scholarships.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 7:35:12 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?





If an athlete goes to a school on his or her own dime and can sign a deal to post on FB or Instagram, go for it. Just don't ask me or the students at that school or the tax payers of the state to pay for the cost of the business that allows him or her to do that.



Students already fund the athletic budget through fees. That's where the lions share of the athletic budget comes from.

And more of that is spent on coach and staff salary than on athletic scholarships.


Which is a part of the costs of the business to which I refer. Bottom line, support for or opposition to NIL divides very clearly along age lines. Younger folks tend to favor it and older folks do not as much. In the latter case, it is driving interest in and support of college athletics down. That's not a good thing. So to spare the readers of Bobcatattack and endless parade of back and forth, I'll leave it at that - one person's opinion.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 12:41:49 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?





If an athlete goes to a school on his or her own dime and can sign a deal to post on FB or Instagram, go for it. Just don't ask me or the students at that school or the tax payers of the state to pay for the cost of the business that allows him or her to do that.



Students already fund the athletic budget through fees. That's where the lions share of the athletic budget comes from.

And more of that is spent on coach and staff salary than on athletic scholarships.


Which is a part of the costs of the business to which I refer. Bottom line, support for or opposition to NIL divides very clearly along age lines. Younger folks tend to favor it and older folks do not as much. In the latter case, it is driving interest in and support of college athletics down. That's not a good thing. So to spare the readers of Bobcatattack and endless parade of back and forth, I'll leave it at that - one person's opinion.


Sorry, not following. So you're opposed to student fees and the NIL?
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,870

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 1:32:52 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?


schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.
Back to Top
  
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,357

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 1:45:23 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?


schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.


That was the intention, sure, but the onus has fallen to the schools to create and then manage these opportunities, then they have to actually sell them to the athletes, who basically aren't doing much if any work for NIL money... it's basically handed to them as a condition of the agreement to sign with the school.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,072

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/11/2023 3:26:50 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?


schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.


While technically correct, athletes are literally asking during the recruitment process how much will I get in NIL or the brazen ones actually are stating how much they need.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,448

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/12/2023 10:14:36 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?


schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.


While technically correct, athletes are literally asking during the recruitment process how much will I get in NIL or the brazen ones actually are stating how much they need.



I'm really lost on your point. Given that NIL money doesn't come out of the athletic budget, what's the OU athletic department's operating budget have to do with the NIL?

Initially, I thought the point you were making was about the schools paying employees directly as employees.

It's very weird to me that you feel like it's "brazen" for a talented person, who has worked hard to hone that talent, wants to make money on their talents. But you don't feel like it's brazen for you to take money out of a stranger's pocket because -- for some reason -- you enjoy watching them play basketball less when they make money.

Back to Top
  
M.D.W.S.T
General User



Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 2,142

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/13/2023 7:40:59 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?


schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.


While technically correct, athletes are literally asking during the recruitment process how much will I get in NIL or the brazen ones actually are stating how much they need.


I dont doubt it happens at this level, obviously we lost Sears, but if your choice is 5-10 G5 schools and you take the $5K check over playing time or coach or school... you deserve the disappointments that are coming your way.

The schools we generally compete with for prospects are in the same boat. We will get recruits the same way we always have - with maybe a little on the side - but it will never be life altering money.

Last Edited: 8/13/2023 7:41:36 PM by M.D.W.S.T
Back to Top
  
giacomo
General User

Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,688

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: A different take on NIL
   Posted: 8/14/2023 7:18:26 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:


The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.


You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.





$26,374 or $36,942 is enough payment per year for someone to attend OU. There really is no reason to pay any more than that.



I’m guessing that’s the cost of in state and out of state costs to attend? I notice you’re not putting a lid on coaches salaries. If we have a free market then we have a free market.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 22  of 22 Posts
Jump to Page:  1
View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 241 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
239 Guests
2 Registered Users:
 GoCats105, Terry Lee
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties