You're on the wrong side of history

Posted on: October 1, 2019 at 21:33:04 CT

First, it seems rather clear that conceptually that both the players and the school have "image rights". Thus, a TV game broadcast is a sale of both the school's and the players' image rights. The law essentially gives the school the sole right to the proceeds from the sale of the "game rights". That's where the major dollars are. I.e. most of the 40 plus million Mizzou expects to get from the SEC comes from the conference TV package with CBS and the SECN.

In return for taking away the players' right to some of the TV package revenue, it gives them the right to any endorsement/appearance/etc. money they can earn. That's chicken feed compared to the revenue from the TV game revenue.

Frankly, the kids probably have a stronger claim the law violates their constitutional rights than the school or the NCAA. It imposes a forfeiture on them without their consent or a right to challenge the forfeiture.

The NCAA and the respective conferences are a cartel, a price fixing cartel. The statute in fact enables and formalizes their price fixing activities.

There is a historical movement pushing for more compensation for players. This statute, whatever the drafters and sponsors intended, is essentially throwing that movement a bone, while at the same time preserving the schools' and conferences exclusive rights to the big money. The NCAA, schools and conferences better grab it while its on the table.

The law preserves the cartel's market power. If anything, the Supreme Court would most likely opt for a free market approach.