What is the major issue with collegiate sports? Most Americans would condemn college athletes for the negative connotations that people associate with college sports. However, the real issue is the NCAA circumventing any charges for the illegal trusts they have developed. The NCAA’s no-pay rule creates both an unlawful form of wage fixing and a felonious group boycott and therefore should be revoked. College athletes bring billions of dollars to the NCAA each year, making the NCAA one of the wealthiest businesses in America. These players, however, do not get the appreciation they well deserve. Unlike any other business, the NCAA does not pay its employees; its employees being the student athletes. These same players invest up to 50 hours
…show more content…
This leads to the mishandling of their money. The NCAA could reverse the trend of one and done athletes by simply compensating these athletes for bringing it so much wealth (Clary 1). Not only does the NCAA have the moral obligation to pay its student athletes, it also has the legal obligation. Constituted in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first attempt by the U.S. Congress to eliminate trusts; it was named after Senator John Sherman. Prior to its ratification, various states passed similar laws, but they only applied to intrastate businesses. The act proclaimed every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade illegal. A fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year were set as the maximum penalties for violating the act. There are two possible ways by which a plaintiff could challenge the NCAA’s no-pay rules under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The first is to assert that the no-pay rules constitutes a form of wage fixing that hurts not only the market for student-athlete services but also the condition of college sports’ on-field product. The second is to argue that the NCAA rules constitute a felonious group boycott of those programs that would otherwise compete in a free market to recruit student-athletes. Under both legal theories, courts would most likely …show more content…
Many court cases have foreshadowed to a change in college sports as we know it. The first case being NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the Supreme court ruled that constricting the amount of events that an NCAA member may broadcast on television violated section 1 of the Sherman Act because it “eliminated competitors from the broadcast television market” (Edelman qtd. “A Short Treatise” 80). Also, the Court explained that “when there is an agreement in terms of price or output, no elaborate industry analysis is needed to demonstrate the anticompetitive characteristics of such agreement.”(Edelman qtd. “A Short Treatise” 80). This case ruling meaning that when there is wage fixing engaged in any industry it is undoubtedly anti-competitive to the
This leads to the mishandling of their money. The NCAA could reverse the trend of one and done athletes by simply compensating these athletes for bringing it so much wealth (Clary 1). Not only does the NCAA have the moral obligation to pay its student athletes, it also has the legal obligation. Constituted in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first attempt by the U.S. Congress to eliminate trusts; it was named after Senator John Sherman. Prior to its ratification, various states passed similar laws, but they only applied to intrastate businesses. The act proclaimed every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade illegal. A fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year were set as the maximum penalties for violating the act. There are two possible ways by which a plaintiff could challenge the NCAA’s no-pay rules under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The first is to assert that the no-pay rules constitutes a form of wage fixing that hurts not only the market for student-athlete services but also the condition of college sports’ on-field product. The second is to argue that the NCAA rules constitute a felonious group boycott of those programs that would otherwise compete in a free market to recruit student-athletes. Under both legal theories, courts would most likely …show more content…
Many court cases have foreshadowed to a change in college sports as we know it. The first case being NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, in which the Supreme court ruled that constricting the amount of events that an NCAA member may broadcast on television violated section 1 of the Sherman Act because it “eliminated competitors from the broadcast television market” (Edelman qtd. “A Short Treatise” 80). Also, the Court explained that “when there is an agreement in terms of price or output, no elaborate industry analysis is needed to demonstrate the anticompetitive characteristics of such agreement.”(Edelman qtd. “A Short Treatise” 80). This case ruling meaning that when there is wage fixing engaged in any industry it is undoubtedly anti-competitive to the