Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Antitrust for coaching and athlete compensation - Coggle Diagram
Antitrust for coaching and athlete compensation
Law v. NCAA (coaches compensation)
court ruled capping coaching salaries was an input restraint
court ruled this was price fixing because salaries were just capped and not negotiations took place
coaches had evidence to show they would have made more than the cap had allowed them to receive
court said capping coaching salaries as a way to cut expenses was not a justification for restraining trade
O'Bannon v. NCAA
This was the first case to show the NCAA is losing some of its power
court said restraints used to keep amateurism does not make the NCAA immune from the Sherman Act
court said if NIL allowed then competition for students would exist and whether that competition is good or not is a different question
NCAA never defined amateur
this case established that schools could pay for the students tuition up to the full cost of tutition
NCAA v. Alston (most recent case)
court ruled limiting the amount of money schools can provide is allowed but limiting other forms of compensation (NIL) is not allowed
court explained the NCAA has changed so much over time and that is why it makes sense to change some of its rules
court said as players got more compensation the interest in the NCAA rose and that showed that NCAA argument that more compensation hurts interests in the collegiate sports did not hold up
employment status of student athletes (Waldrep case)
Waldrep case
established that athletes are not employees of the state and can not use workers comp of the state
Right to control test is way to determine if employee or not, which looks the amount of control one party has over the other
in Waldrep the court said not enough control because the school only controlling what they do as athletes and not controlling what they do as students
court said because schools can't "fire" athletes after a bad game shows that the athletes are not employees
court said because taxes not paid on the scholarships this shows that students are not employees because employees pay taxes on their earnings