Tommy Tuberville

As I mentioned, some conferences already do.   Guaranteeing a scholarship wouldn't make someone an employee.  Entering into an agreement stating "we guarantee your scholarship BUT you forfeit the right to transfer" might well be looked upon differently.   That is how I took those comments.   The quid pro quo aspect.  

As I mentioned the last time this discussion came up, the US Supreme Court essentially announced that they were excited about the opportunity to rip back the curtain around college athletics.  As a body, they generally can not make policy, but in the unanimous decision, they signaled that they recognize that college athletics is a professional endeavor with unpaid labor for some sports, and any cases tried on those grounds were very likely to find a favorable ruling should it reach their bench. 

I think a big part of the debate/concern etc from individuals is that people really don't understand how things work.  It is similar to when you hear a fan complaining about an athlete holding out because "he signed that contract".  Those people have no clue as to the actual process of an NFL contract or what the contract really outlines. 

So...a non compete clause based on offered compensation (4 multiple year guarantee of scholarship).... Sounds very much like an employer/employee type thing.  

Not a labor attorney, nor am I a Supreme Court Justice, but I would say because you are saying "you can't go somewhere else". 
Remember, scholarships are for academic terms- not "years" per se.  

"While you are competing in an intercollegiate sport for us, we will reduce/eliminate tuition".  That seems different to me than "This contract binds our university to a guaranteed grand in aid to John.  In exchange, John forfeits his ability to compete in intercollegiate athletics should John want to/need to chose a different academic institution for the duration of aforementioned guarantee." 

Again, not a lawyer/SC Justice.  But in reading the SC's decision, it is clear that they definitely believe the law favors the individual as opposed to the institution when it comes to these things. 
  

To change the subject a little, how can the NFL ban people from playing until 3 years after high school (or whatever the rule is). Don't care about the exact rule, more just that there is one.

Same for NBA and one year out of high school.

And MLB, no rule out of high school, but if you play college ball, you now have to wait three years.

I understand why the NFL, NBA, and MLB have these rules. But they seem illegal to the future employees.

How in the world is this not collusion?

I didn't think the NCAA was enforcing anything in regards to NIL. Also, I thought they were only planning on making payment information open. 

What specifically are they trying to enforce?

Maybe I didnt write it out, or I probably just miswrote it, but the bolded part is what I was hoping to imply. The NCAA creates the eligibility rule that prohibits transfers from playing immediately (creating an eligibility rule). 

Though it would have the same outcome as the school baking it in to the scholarship, it allows it to be a situation where the athlete is viewed less an employee. 

Well, as I mentioned, I think the reasonableness comes mainly from the seasonality issue, combined with the fact that there are indeed admissions windows for Universities.  As I mentioned, a non athletic accounting major in Tuscaloosa  couldn't decide in Mid September to drive out west and enroll at SDSU could they?  

But mainly I do think it is because of the seasonal nature.  Having some rules seems reasonable--but saying if you leave that school you can't play at the new school you go to for 365 days- not so much.   At least that is what I think most would would view it.  

I didn’t realize those have withstood court challenges. Surprises me.

NFL maybe has an safety argument.

NBA, not so much. And there is zero doubt that the NBA is doing that to protect its owners from themselves. Collusion.

And MLB draft is all messed up with its eligibility rules. Cannot believe that works.

Their rules on amateurism, which prohibited NIL payments.  That's how they wound up in court.

I think collusion, in regards to professional sports gets measured differently due to the direct competition on the same field of play between employees from different owners.

Example: Employees from Target & those from Wal Mart never directly work together, not in the same building, and don't need the other to work. They work for different competing companies whose owners can't collude. If the employees from Wal Mart didn't show up to work, those from Target can still do their job. If the Wal Mart employees were bad at their job, it wouldn't negatively impact Target's employees or Target's business. They are in direct competition with each other for business.

NOW
Contrast that with professional sports: Employees (see players) from the Red Sox and the Yankees DO work together, on the same field of competition. If the employees (players) for the Red Sox did not show up for work (a game against the Yankees) the Yankees couldn't do their job and it would impact the Yankees business. They are in direct competition for winning games, but their businesses are in direct competition with other forms of entertainment.

That is the material difference, and why I believe playing in a sports league should be more viewed as working for that league (not the individual team). And each different team is like a different branch where you could be transferred to. Of course that would give owners a lot of authority to control wages, thats why unions were a good thing and players unionized across teams to collectively bargain and strike for appropriate wages. The market corrected itself once allowed to (removal of the reserve clause). But the material difference of inter-team competition in sports makes collusion a bit different than in other businesses. 

Tubs is probably the smartest and well intentioned congressman we have.

let's get back to the football aspect of this- not the partisan aspect.

Agreed. it should be absolutely possible to discuss the policy without discussing the political actors. This particular policy is partisan neutral.

Initially I thought this thread would not only create interest, but also a lot of dialogue. Turns out the dialogue has gone where I personally have felt all along the topic would end up. A complete mess.