Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Sports
Related: About this forumEA Sports says it would be 'very interested' in rebooting NCAA Football
Link to tweet
Id definitely would like to see it come back, Robinson told 247Sports. If they were to do a pool and asked kids if they want to be on NCAA football and if they want to bring NCAA back, a lot of kids would say yes although they wouldnt get paid.
About that The story of NCAA footballs demise is a tale well worn at this point. Lawsuits over athlete likeness, including the landmark proceedings of Ed OBannon, ended the games circulation with the 2014 version. The courts ruled EA Sports had used athlete likeness without permission or compensation. EA Sports eventually paid out $60 million in settlements to athletes who appeared in its games between 2003-14, according to CBS Sports.
Thus ended NCAA Football for the modern generation. The NCAA did not renew its licensing agreement with EA, and though recent Madden games have featured colleges EA individually licenses the brands from the schools there has been little movement toward a new flagship college football game.
That could change soon.
The NCAA made a quiet yet potentially momentous announcement May 14 that it would create a working group to examine the issue of likeness in college athletics. Currently, athletes lack the right to monetize their name or brand. If the NCAA choose to alter its rules and allow athletes to capitalize on their image, it would potentially open an avenue for the return of NCAA Football.
https://247sports.com/Article/NCAA-football-video-game-return-college-football-athlete-likeness-132110322/
Do it NCAA and end the monopsonic rule.
Monopsony in College AthleticsPosner
The most common type of cartel is an agreement among competitors not to sell their product below a fixed price that will generate monopoly profits for the parties to the agreement. But another type of cartel, termed monopsonistic (from the Greek words for one and purchasing of food) rather than monopolistic (one seller, versus one buyer in a monopsonized market), is an agreement among competitors not to pay more than a fixed price for a key input, such as labor. By agreeing to pay less, the cartel purchases less of the input (and perhaps of lower quality), because less is supplied at the lower price (and suppliers may lower quality to compensate, by reducing their costs, for the lower price they receive).
The National Collegiate Athletic Association behaves monopsonistically in forbidding its member colleges and universities to pay its athletes. Although cartels, including monopsonistic ones, are generally deemed to be illegal per se under American antitrust law, the NCAAs monopsonistic behavior has thus far not been successfully challenged. The justification that the NCAA offersthat collegiate athletes are students and would be corrupted by being salariedcoupled with the fact that the members of the NCAA, and the NCAA itself, are formally not-for-profit institutions, have had sufficient appeal to enable the association to continue to impose and enforce its rule against paying student athletes, and a number of subsidiary rules designed to prevent the cheating by cartel members that plagues most cartels.
As Becker points out, were it not for the monopsonistic rule against paying student athletes, these athletes would be paid; the monopsony transfers wealth from them to their employers, the colleges. A further consequence is that college teams are smaller and, more important, of lower quality than they would be if the student athletes were paid.
One might ask why colleges choose to collude on the student athlete dimension rather than on some other dimension, such as tuitionagreeing to minimum tuition levels, or maximum scholarships. The answer I think lies in my earlier pointthe justification (specious though it may be) that paying student athletes would corrupt the educational process, an argument that draws on a tradition of admiration for amateurism even in adult athletic competition, as in tennis until 1968. Efforts to fix the price for a college education would encounter sharper antitrust challengesand indeed the Ivy League schools were forced by antitrust litigation to drop their attempt to limit competition in scholarship aid, a form of price fixingin effect colluding on tuition discounts, which is what a scholarship is.
https://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/monopsony-in-college-athleticsposner.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 849 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post