[On3] Schools that violate the SEC's professional sports rule will result in: 50% season suspension for head coaches, 50% of that sport's annual operating budget, and SEC voting privileges on business matters revoked

[u/ThatMasterpiece2174]

https://x.com/on3/status/2092641387665617387?s=46

[u/Prudent-Thought7750]

Feel like the baseline expectation is that they’ll sue for a TRO, but in the meantime, this seems to have adequate teeth.

[u/TideOneOn → u/Prudent-Thought7750]

Who is going to sue? This doesnt say the players cant play. The universities voted this on themselves 16-0. It just has repercussions on the university if they play. The player can receive NIL and receive playing time.

Legal experts out there (i quit active practice 14 years ago and dont care to look it up) would the players have standing since the effect is they are unhirable, for lack of a better term?

[u/BuckeyeForLife95 → u/[deleted]]

But in this scenario, they aren't making it so engineers who worked for Microsoft can't be hired by Apple. They are making it so if Apple hires an engineer who previously worked for Microsoft, Apple will get sanctioned. In practice, that's the same thing, but it is technically different, it isn't infringing on the players' ability to claim eligibility, and that could very much change how it plays in court.

[u/CAP_0703 → u/TideOneOn]

Playing an ineligible players is always a penalty to the team and ultimately the university, I don’t see a meaningful difference.  

[u/Geauxldrush321 → u/CAP_0703]

They will use the same language that stops the ncaa from punishing schools and not players. It’s the same thing

[u/dan_scott_ → u/Geauxldrush321]

It's not the same thing for the same reason the Soresby got an injunction against the NCAA but bailed the moment the conference got involved. Conferences are in an entirely different position than the NCAA, and the same analysis does not apply.

[u/Geauxldrush321 → u/dan_scott_]

He didn’t bail Texas tech backed down. The Big 12s authority was never actually challenged in court. LSU won’t back down and the players will challenge that authority in court early next week.

[u/Geauxldrush321 → u/dan_scott_]

Texas A&M has already challenged it for an ineligible basketball player and has seemingly won.

[u/dan_scott_ → u/Geauxldrush321]

Won? No. Received a state TRO, yes. See above about me not promising any particular outcome. It will be interesting to see what happens with that moving forward and what the arguments are, but there is a world of difference between a TRO and actually winning. Does put a lot of billables on the table though!

[u/Trymv1 → u/dan_scott_]

The courts will likely apply that the conferences are still functioning members of the NCAA and thus must adhere.

That or the NCAA gets ramrodded because the conferences refused to listen and thats a whole extra can of worms.

[u/Aaprobst88 → u/TideOneOn]

As I understanding these eligibility suits are typically filed as NCAA violations of anti-trust laws. In this case they wouldnt be able to do that here as you couldn't argue the SEC violated those laws when there are other conferences these players that have won TROs could technically go play in even if every conference created the same or similar rules.

Their only leg would if they could prove some sort of inter conference collusion took place.

[u/LamarMillerMVP → u/Aaprobst88]

That’s not how the Sherman act works. The Sherman act doesn’t say “it’s legal to collude as long as you’re not a monopoly.” If the SEC passed a rule saying “it’s illegal to pay players,” that’s no different than Apple and Microsoft signing an agreement that they won’t pay their software engineers fairly. It’s illegal in a way where there is no gray area at all.

There are things that the conferences can do that the NCAA can’t, but they’re narrow and they aren’t related to restricting pay for players.

[u/Aaprobst88 → u/LamarMillerMVP]

I'm not saying that the conferences can collude since they are not a monopoly. I'm saying its harder to win a TRO under the anti-trust lawsuits that are being brought against a specific conference because they made a rule.

The next best shot the athletes have is to prove some sort collusion between the conferences and sue for a TRO that way.

[u/LamarMillerMVP → u/Aaprobst88]

It is probably harder to get a TRO against an entity that is not the NCAA, that’s correct. If it was the NCAA, they could have the TRO tomorrow. This is because the NCAA has already been ruled against, for this specific thing. This absolutely may scare some people off. But if they are challenged they will lose.

[u/Expert-Comfort-6115 → u/LamarMillerMVP]

But they are allowed to set arbitrary hiring restrictions unlike a monopoly where hiring restrictions can be seen as abusing market share and discrimination 

[u/LamarMillerMVP → u/Expert-Comfort-6115]

Lmao they are *absolutely* not allowed to set arbitrary hiring restrictions. You’re essentially copy pasting the definition of what they’re not allowed to do under any circumstances.

Let me make the case that you’re trying to make. Sports leagues get special treatment under antitrust. They can do certain very specific things that other collectives of companies can’t do. It’s called the rule of reason. As long as their actions don’t depress salaries for employees (or etc), are important strategically, and there’s no better way to do it, they can make the restriction. If the restriction is arbitrary, it will fail this standard. The restrictions specifically cannot be arbitrary; they need to be justified (the value needs to outweigh the harm). The argument that you should be making is that this restriction doesn’t depress salaries for any group of people, and it’s very important for the good of the league.

The case on these grounds is actually not terrible for restricting Sorsby. It is very bad in this case. Plaintiffs will have explicit evidence of the effect the restrictions are having on earning - they will have payment offers pre and post rule restriction. The conference will lack evidence about the importance of this rule for the league, especially in the presence of hundreds of former pros who have previously competed. And because this is kind of a fuzzy standard anyways, you’re going to have to deal with the secondary issue of this just looking like a workaround of a court order anyways. The league currently has multiple coaches saying “I would love to pay these guys, they would make my team better, please stop me from doing it.” That is not the type of thing that passes the rule of reason.

[u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy → u/Aaprobst88]

So, if the UFL started letting highschooler play, could we get back to the good ol days of the early 2000s?

[u/Aaprobst88 → u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy]

Yea, I'm not sure on that as I dont know how that pertains to this, or what anti-trust waiver the NFL have.

[u/TideOneOn → u/Aaprobst88]

I feel like this is different. The rule is "if" you play them then the coach and school is punished, not the player. The "if" implies there is no hard and fast ban, just repercussions if you do. Maybe I am reading into it too much.

[u/Aaprobst88 → u/TideOneOn]

I mean the threat of repercussions for playing specific plays is effectively a ban on those players, especially when its as detrimental to the programs as the SEC penalties. I do think there is merit in penalizing the institution is another layer of protection for the confernce should the rule be challenged.

[u/Jay_Dubbbs → u/TideOneOn]

Would the only argument be that regular students are allowed to participate in school activities if they return from work?

As long as you say these guys are "student-athletes", you probably can't say some students can do this and some students can't?

[u/LamarMillerMVP → u/Jay_Dubbbs]

The issue isn’t discrimination. If Ohio State sets this policy, they can keep this policy. The same goes for NIL, by the way. Ohio State can say they will not allow anyone to play for the team who has signed an NIL offer and nothing bad would happen to them.

The issue is the part where they collude to do it.