If you think about it, the NCAA is also a "collective", which is the new word for a crowd funded org. It is a private organization with members (schools) contributing funds. it does what the members want it to do, and the group of university Presidents oversee the NCAA management to insure that. you can like or not like what they are doing, but I think they will follow that governance. I believe that the Presidents ultimately authorized the Penn State sanctions in 2012, and gave the okay to Emmert to move forward on that. Outside of member school funding, I think the only other major revenue source they have is the NCAA BB tournament. Maybe some smaller $$$ from other sport tournaments. I think they are considered non-profit.
The reason that I raise this, is that the NCAA is nothing but an instrumentality of all the schools as a collective. Nobody forces any school to be a member, and many universities are NOT members, as there are other groups like NAIA. How exactly does one attack the NCAA on the basis of anti-trust? You essentially have to attack all the schools for working together for an anti-competitive purpose. What is that purpose? I have read the Allston case summary, and this was not the line of argument. I have been in an industry where a trade association activity came under Sherman Anti-Trust, and the individual companies were all held to account by the DOJ and the association itself was the minor player.
also, the Allston case only decided that an individual player could receive $$$ for their OWN personal NIL, and that the NCAA could not prevent that. There was a presumption that the NIL $$$ were about the player and not related to them being at any particular institution. That decision also did NOT stop the NCAA and its members from precluding pay for play and/or recruiting inducement. If what Gene Smith said is true, the NCAA is actually going to enforce retroactively (the rules from 2021), this is going to play out fast.
If you look at some of the comments from the justices, the Allston case felt almost "political" rather than legal writing. A justice whining about coaches pay is to not relevant to the legal decision.
The reason that I raise this, is that the NCAA is nothing but an instrumentality of all the schools as a collective. Nobody forces any school to be a member, and many universities are NOT members, as there are other groups like NAIA. How exactly does one attack the NCAA on the basis of anti-trust? You essentially have to attack all the schools for working together for an anti-competitive purpose. What is that purpose? I have read the Allston case summary, and this was not the line of argument. I have been in an industry where a trade association activity came under Sherman Anti-Trust, and the individual companies were all held to account by the DOJ and the association itself was the minor player.
also, the Allston case only decided that an individual player could receive $$$ for their OWN personal NIL, and that the NCAA could not prevent that. There was a presumption that the NIL $$$ were about the player and not related to them being at any particular institution. That decision also did NOT stop the NCAA and its members from precluding pay for play and/or recruiting inducement. If what Gene Smith said is true, the NCAA is actually going to enforce retroactively (the rules from 2021), this is going to play out fast.
If you look at some of the comments from the justices, the Allston case felt almost "political" rather than legal writing. A justice whining about coaches pay is to not relevant to the legal decision.
