Supreme Court rules that NCAA cannot bar athletes from being paid

[Uncle Rico]

This is exactly what happened with the Olympics. They spent decades making believe they were all about amateurism and finally had to face reality.

It hasn't "ruined" the Olympics at all. And it wouldn't "ruin" college sports.

It will change college sports, though, absolutely. As did letting Black athletes compete, as did giving women some semblance of equality(ish), as did letting freshmen be eligible immediately, etc.

I bet it changes college sports a lot less than the people think when it comes to what is on the court or field of play

[Pakuni]

What fallacy did I state?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The separation of football and basketball teams from the schools is right around the corner.

What does "right around the corner" mean? Next season? 5 years? 10? 25? 50? Need to mark my calendar.

[Scoop Snoop]

You're missing the forest through the trees.
While that's the upshot of this ruling, it's because that is the limited issue on which the court was asked to rule.
But if you read the decision and the concurrence, the writing is on the wall for the NCAA. The court is telling them that a) athletes are employees and b) the NCAA is subject to antitrust regulations like any other business. If and when a case arrives challenging the NCAA's ban on other forms of compensation, the court has dropped a pretty huge hint on where it's going to come down.

Yep. A 9-0 ruling from what is often described as a deeply divided court is about as subtle as a sledge hammer in motion.

In Gasaway's book, he mentions that early in the past century the idea of paying the athletes a portion of the proceeds from some tourneys was floated, then sunk. 

(minor edit for punctuation.)

[Billy Hoyle]

You're missing the forest through the trees.
While that's the upshot of this ruling, it's because that is the limited issue on which the court was asked to rule.
But if you read the decision and the concurrence, the writing is on the wall for the NCAA. The court is telling them that a) athletes are employees and b) the NCAA is subject to antitrust regulations like any other business. If and when a case arrives challenging the NCAA's ban on other forms of compensation, the court has dropped a pretty huge hint on where it's going to come down.

the athletes are going to love it when they have to pay taxes on their $80,000 scholarships.

[Pakuni]

the athletes are going to love it when they have to pay taxes on their $80,000 scholarships.

Nah.

Tax-Free
If you receive a scholarship, a fellowship grant, or other grant, all or part of the amounts you receive may be tax-free. Scholarships, fellowship grants, and other grants are tax-free if you meet the following conditions:
   You're a candidate for a degree at an educational institution that maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of students in attendance at the place where it carries on its educational activities; and
    The amounts you receive are used to pay for tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at the educational institution, or for fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses at the educational institution.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421

[Uncle Rico]

the athletes are going to love it when they have to pay taxes on their $80,000 scholarships.

Smart universities will account for that.  Dumb ones won't and they'll have to fight for the leftovers. 

[lawdog77]

the athletes are going to love it when they have to pay taxes on their $80,000 scholarships.

I thought a portion of their scholarship was taxable already, just like any other scholarship. The amount to pay for non qualified expenses, and room and board.

edited for epelling

[WhiteTrash]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Ha! I thought so.

When you have some intelligent thoughts on the issue, we'd like to hear them.

[WhiteTrash]

Smart universities will account for that.  Dumb ones won't and they'll have to fight for the leftovers.

Account for them how? I assume you mean paying them more? Seriously interested because I probably missing something. 

[Pakuni]

Ha! I thought so.

When you have some intelligent thoughts on the issue, we'd like to hear them.

Yeah, the guy trying to tie this to Michigan State's Nassar settlement is the one with intelligent thoughts on the issue.

[Uncle Rico]

Account for them how? I assume you mean paying them more? Seriously interested because I probably missing something.

That will be for the lawyers and accountants to figure out.  Any conference or university worth anything has been planning for this day for a long time. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

I thought a portion of their scholarship was taxable already, just like any other scholarship. The amount to pay for non qualified expenses, and room and board.

edited for epelling

I hope this was intentional

[lawdog77]

I hope this was intentional

yas

[StillAWarrior]

Is it reasonable to assume that under Title IX that anything given to the Football and MBB will also have to make its way to other sports? In the simplest of terms based on what SCOTUS was addressing (i.e., educational expenses) if all the football players get new laptops, would other athletes need to get the same. Then, if it gets into payment down the road...will that all be addressed through Title IX?

Also, since this is being viewed through an antitrust lens, does that have any implications on the current scholarship limits? If the NCAA can't conspire to limit compensation, can they conspire to limit the number of athletes receiving compensation?

[NCMUFan]

They're not excluded, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many schools interested in providing additional compensation to the hardworking members of the cross country and bowling teams (regardless of how much prestige a winning cross country season may bring).

So the cross country and bowling teams have student athletes and the men's basketball team has MU employees?

[Pakuni]

Is it reasonable to assume that under Title IX that anything given to the Football and MBB will also have to make its way to other sports? In the simplest of terms based on what SCOTUS was addressing (i.e., educational expenses) if all the football players get new laptops, would other athletes need to get the same. Then, if it gets into payment down the road...will that all be addressed through Title IX?

Title IX really isn't the barrier it's made out to be. The law bars discrimination, including in athletic opportunities and allocation of athletic scholarships. It's largely silent on any compensation or benefit beyond that.
If it were extended to all benefits/compensation, then there would be no football/basketball dorms or training facilities; or men's basketball coaches who earn 10 times more than the women's basketball coach, etc.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Is it reasonable to assume that under Title IX that anything given to the Football and MBB will also have to make its way to other sports? In the simplest of terms based on what SCOTUS was addressing (i.e., educational expenses) if all the football players get new laptops, would other athletes need to get the same. Then, if it gets into payment down the road...will that all be addressed through Title IX?

Without getting into the weeds too much, no, I don't think TIX will come into play here. With a few caveats, TIX requires equal allocation of resources between men's and women's sports...not that those resources be the same...or distributed over the same number of athletes or same number of sports.

[Pakuni]

So the cross country and bowling teams have student athletes and the men's basketball team has MU employees?

Why not all employees?

[The Equalizer]

Does this take effect immediately? 

For instance, could we make an offer to Garcia today to entice him to come back? 

[MU82]

Does this take effect immediately? 

For instance, could we make an offer to Garcia today to entice him to come back?

Only if he plays the tuba!

[NCMUFan]

Why not all employees?

Would someone be an employee if they weren't paid.
Maybe we should call them volunteers or interns?

[WhiteTrash]

Yeah, the guy trying to tie this to Michigan State's Nassar settlement is the one with intelligent thoughts on the issue.

Sorry you missed the point being made. Maybe next time.

[The Sultan]

Sorry you missed the point being made. Maybe next time.

Posting a pic of a white flag would have just been easier.

[AZWarrior]

You're missing the forest through the trees.
While that's the upshot of this ruling, it's because that is the limited issue on which the court was asked to rule.
But if you read the decision and the concurrence, the writing is on the wall for the NCAA. The court is telling them that a) athletes are employees and b) the NCAA is subject to antitrust regulations like any other business. If and when a case arrives challenging the NCAA's ban on other forms of compensation, the court has dropped a pretty huge hint on where it's going to come down.

Agreed.  The NCAA was foolish to appeal the (narrow) decision.