dagblog - Comments for "Supreme Court sides unanimously with ex-athletes in NCAA compensation case"

It's an odd cutout. On one

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:36:19 +0000

In reply to shorter version from another

It's an odd cutout. On one hand it offers a trade of sports services for education, so conceivably a fair exchange. If athletes feel gutsier they can compete in baseball in Tampa/St Pete at 18 and hope they make it up from the minors. Football doesn't have a lot of early recruiting before 21, likely in part to the danger of growing bodies dealing with mature 300 pound opponents. There's ostensibly that backup education should injury or lack of ability prevail. The NCAA maintains an entry system for all of this, promotes it, takes its own risks as individual and collective programs, spreads out proceeds to less remunerative sports (thanks to Title IX for example). Is it arbitrary, patronizing, exploitive? Sure. But will student discounts be denied now as interfering with players' income? Will uni drama and glee club be required to pay $15/hour? Basketball and football are big money - college baseball and hockey not so much, college tennis a bit arbitrary ..

shorter version from another

artappraiser — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:47:29 +0000

In reply to @SportsLawGuy Gabe Feldman

shorter version from another law professor:

Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is . pic.twitter.com/VOS3Alm8xI
— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) June 21, 2021

@SportsLawGuy Gabe Feldman

artappraiser — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:44:54 +0000

In reply to Supreme Court sides unanimously with ex-athletes in NCAA compensation case

@SportsLawGuy Gabe Feldman has a lot to say; easy to understand, including lots of tweeted quotes from Kavanaugh.