[BostonCard]

BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.

That is because they are conflated legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Bannon_v._NCAA

O'Bannon v. NCAA was originally a NIL case, with Ed O'Bannon arguing that the NCAA rule banning him from receiving money from EA Sports for the use of his image and likeness in a videogame was a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  So far, so good, but the remedy from the judge in the case was that the longstanding practice of not paying athletes was illegal, not just NIL.

On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws.[19] She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.[20]

While the USSC denied certiorari of the NCAA's appeal, in its aftermath Wilken heard NCAA v. Alston, which was a consolidated case in which Wilken ruled that the NCAA could not limit aid to cost-of-attendance aid.  This case made it all the way to the USSC, which ruled, unanimously, against the NCAA in the spring.

Formally, the Supreme Court has only ruled in Alston, and the decision was relatively narrow.  However, the groundwork seems to have been pretty cleanly laid for courts to determine that both limitations to payments for NIL and barring direct payments to athletes for their labor will prove to be violations of the Sherman antitrust act.  I will be interested to see whether this is taken to its logical legal conclusion, which is that not only can the NCAA not restrain trade, but that schools are subject to employment rules, including minimum wage, etc.  My guess is that this will finally get decided when former athletes file suit alleging wage theft and misclassification.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC seems to be conflating the issue of whether college athletes are really employees or not with that of ownership of NIL rights.

That is because they are conflated legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Bannon_v._NCAA

O'Bannon v. NCAA was originally a NIL case, with Ed O'Bannon arguing that the NCAA rule banning him from receiving money from EA Sports for the use of his image and likeness in a videogame was a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  So far, so good, but the remedy from the judge in the case was that the longstanding practice of not paying athletes was illegal, not just NIL.

On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws.[19] She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.[20]

While the USSC denied certiorari of the NCAA's appeal, in its aftermath Wilken heard NCAA v. Alston, which was a consolidated case in which Wilken ruled that the NCAA could not limit aid to cost-of-attendance aid.  This case made it all the way to the USSC, which ruled, unanimously, against the NCAA in the spring.

Formally, the Supreme Court has only ruled in Alston, and the decision was relatively narrow.  However, the groundwork seems to have been pretty cleanly laid for courts to determine that both limitations to payments for NIL and barring direct payments to athletes for their labor will prove to be violations of the Sherman antitrust act.  I will be interested to see whether this is taken to its logical legal conclusion, which is that not only can the NCAA not restrain trade, but that schools are subject to employment rules, including minimum wage, etc.  My guess is that this will finally get decided when former athletes file suit alleging wage theft and misclassification.

BC