<p>Yes, and LeBron’s James’s high school had a shoe contract with adidas when LeBron was just a high school sophomore: [The</a> path to greatness - NBA - ESPN](<a href=“Super Bowl 2024 guide: 49ers-Chiefs picks, stats, predictions - ESPN”>The path to greatness - ESPN) The shoe companies are clearly profiting off the players. Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus could earn as much as they wanted when they were 15, but somehow LeBron James could not. There is no justification for the disparate treatment.</p>
<p>Antitrust laws are not intended to apply to college scholarships. Nobody is forced to accept them and there are 1000’s of alternative ways to go to college. Not all scholarships even carry equal value. What is one to Stanford worth compared to one to East Tenn State? </p>
<p>Yeah, Ewing got a raw deal. Joke. Nike still paid Gtown after Ewing was gone. They wanted Gtown. Players come and go.</p>
<p>Unless Congress wants to change Title 9 there is no extra money to pay football and basketball players. That sucks up all profits from football/basketball</p>
<p>Cyrus and Bieber don’t need other players and a coach and opponents to play.</p>
<p>We went to a Nike Showcase tournament in 2010 to see a family member play- a bunch of high school kids. It was $20 a person to get in the door! Didn’t expect that but luckily my husband had some cash on him!</p>
<p>I think it’s powerful because it’s not just 1A football or basketball, and it’s not just financial power. It’s sports being the deciding factor in the admission of a pretty large number of kids to very nearly the entire spectrum of the 4500 degree granting schools in the US. I think it’s powerful because it has influenced the mission of so many schools away from being places of learning towards being these multi dimensional experience providers. D1, Ivy League, NESCAC, MIT, you name it. They all accept kids whose hook is they can out fill out their sports teams.</p>
<p>That case dealt with direct collusion in the AMOUNT to be given as a scholarship. Sports scholarships are not given in that way. Rich or poor get the same amount as there is no need component. The rules are there to provide an even playing field and all schools have the same numbers to work with. (football 85 in D-1 and so on).</p>
<p>I ask again, why do we have BIG money sports in college when it’s is a net money loser for the majority of schools; the activity is rife w corruption; many of the athletes can barely read or write; and the taxpayers & students are subsidizing the training & revenue stream for the NBA, NFL, Nike.</p>
<p>Ahem… the Athletic dept overall GPA at DD’s D1 school is far above the all school average. There have also been several graduate school scholarships awarded to athletes.</p>
<p>I am supportive of extracurricular athletics in college, but let’s not pretend that the Big money sports atheletes are in college for anything but sports. Academics should not be a nuisance requirement for being in college…</p>
<p>GMT-your smug generalizations show you have never talked to any actual college athletes. Watch some of the behind the scenes shows like The Journey on BTN. You will see another side of high level athletes and learn something too.</p>
<p>The athletes who play the big money sports in college should be allowed to major in that sport in my opinion. It would be fair to them, considering the amount of time they put in. There should be a coaching major. It’s a career.</p>
<p>Something IS wrong with this picture: in most states, the highest paid public employee is a coach, most likely a football coach. Look at the map:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The article describes the state flagship in NC (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) as being a low-fee, highly-ranked school in the article.</p></li>
<li><p>The Carolina Covenant allows UNC-CH students from low-income families to receive financial aid that meets 100% of their financial need without loans; this financial aid includes fees, so low-income students at UNC-CH are not subsidizing any college sports.</p></li>
<li><p>The article describes the University of North Carolina at Asheville, not UNC-CH, as being a high-fee university. UNC-A is an entirely different university than UNC-CH. In this state, some people might call UNC-CH “North Carolina” or even just “Carolina,” but nobody refers to UNC-Asheville as “North Carolina.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Some antitrust cases are heavily fact-dependent but others are not. Price-fixing cases are not heavily fact dependent in that the plaintiff only needs to show that the defendants did indeed conspire to fix prices. The reasoning is that price-fixing is unlikely to be socially beneficial. </p>
<p>The NCAA has run afoul of price-fixing laws before. In 1984, it lost a price-fixing case in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. (The NCAA had fixed the maximum TV revenue individual schools could get.) </p>
<p>More recently, the NCAA was sued over the regulation that schools could only offer one-year scholarships. For decades, a scholarship could be taken away at the end of the school year without cause. Multiyear scholarships are now permitted. (The members tried to block the new regulation but fell just short of the needed super majority.) Now, instead of withdrawing scholarships, the schools will have to be more creative. One tactic is a variant of the medical redshirt. (The coach tells the player that he is injured and no longer on the roster, but the school continues to compensate the player.) </p>
<p>Some may wonder how the NBA or NFL can get away with a rookie wage scale, or how the best player in baseball can be paid just $500,000 this year when others are paid as much as $20 million. The answer is the non-statutory labor exemption. Agreements that would otherwise violate the antitrust laws may be legal if they are the result of collective bargaining. For example, the NFL won a case concerning its minimum age for eligibility. During oral arguments, then-Judge Sotomayor famously tipped her hand when she said: Thats what unions do: protect those in the union from those not in the union. They also protect those with seniority from those without. (That the plaintiff, Clarett, washed out is completely irrelevant to the legal merits of the case.) But the non-statutory labor exemption is not germane here since player compensation in the NCAA was not collectively bargained. </p>
<p>The upshot is that the NCAA acts like a garden variety cartel, and price-fixing agreements are normally per se illegal so arguments of a greater good may be moot. That is the view of academicians from across the spectrum. One example is Andrew Zimbalist. In this interview he makes the case that the NCAA acts as a cartel. [Interview</a> - Andrew Zimbalist | Money and March Madness | FRONTLINE | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-and-march-madness/interviews/andrew-zimbalist.html]Interview”>Interview - Andrew Zimbalist | Money and March Madness | FRONTLINE | PBS) That the NCAA has lost several price-fixing cases already, they must hope for the right judge and the right venue.</p>
<p>The Boat Race is definitely not a big deal. It is shown on television, but it’s more of a yearly tradition/“look at the rich kids” thing. It in no way competes with professional sport.</p>
<p>Oxford and Cambridge are so different to American colleges that you can’t make a fair comparison. I’m a Cambridge grad now in the US, and my sister goes to Oxford. Oxbridge (undergrad) admissions are purely academic: no sports, no extracurriculars, no leadership, no legacies, no development admits, no nothing. It’s all about how you do in the (academic-only) interview with professors.</p>
<p>The point is that recruiting undergraduate athletes would be so fundamentally alien to the character of these universities, that it’s not really relevant to American college sports.</p>
<p>To my mind, the increasing amount of money spent on college sports in the USA shows that it’s a case where the free market is failing. It’s an arms race. You could cut spending by half, so long as you did it at every university, and the sports would be just as exciting.</p>
<p>There is something sad about (mostly white) coaches and other making huge money off of (mostly black) men, who make nothing except the promise of an education. It has uncomfortable echoes of slavery.</p>
<p>While the college sports situation is not perfect, your attempt to criticize it by comparing it to slavery reveals a lack of understanding of the horror of slavery.</p>
<p>Are college athletes forced to become college athletes, with no choice as to college, location or coach?
Are college athletes kidnapped from their homes and shipped overseas?
Are college athletes prevented from seeing their families ever again?
Do a large proportion of college athletes die as they are being transported to college?
Are college athletes forbidden to read and write?
Must children of college athletes also suffer their fate?
Can children and spouses of college athletes be sold and moved elsewhere?
Are college athletes required to remain college athletes forever?
Are college athletes routinely housed in substandard housing?
Are college athletes routinely underfed?
Are college athletes subject to the whims of their coaches?</p>
<p>Okay, maybe yes to the last one. But really, please don’t minimize the horrors of slavery. Doing so just undercuts your point.</p>