Once again, where is the anti-trust argument for either Wade or Pearl? Even if the courts were to declare that direct payments must be allowed, how would Wade or Pearl be a victim of an anti-trust violation?
They are stopping commerce or attempting to stop commerce via collusion in a monopoly setting i.e. NCAA and NCAA rules. (the NCAA admits they have a monopoly) The NCAA really doesn't have any defense to this, its a.... well, we think we are special i.e. amateur athletes. It was nonsense decades ago, its nonsense today.... it will be nonsense tomorrow.
Both the coach and player in that instance would have standing for injunction relief and damages (if any).
But they do, and have for more than half a century.
They only exist if you believe they exist, the ones that don't believe they exist... they don't. Without enforcement its moot, which is what the NCAA has been doing for years now.
Nobody cares, nobody is going to enforce... .so its moot. The NCAA really isn't doing anything to anyone.
That's not collusion. The schools are the NCAA. They are not distinct entities.
The NCAA is a monopoly, the schools are part of the monopoly. There isn't anything difficult about this, I mean it was duh before... the Supreme Court even made it easy for a Gump with a 4th grade education to understand.
he NCAA’s business model would be flatly il-
legal in almost any other industry in America. All of the
restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’
wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from
low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’
salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love
of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income
in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News
organizations cannot join force s to curtail pay to reporters
to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism.
Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera
crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.
Price-fixing labor is price-fi xing labor. And price-fixing
labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it
extinguishes the free market in which individuals can oth-
erwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g.,
4 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing la-
bor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monop-
sony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it
product definition.
Kavaugh says its a price fixing scam i.e. what we would call a criminal enterprise. <------ Schools can get together and price fix, which is what they have been doing.
There really isn't anything complex about this, for some reason you guys think the law doesn't apply, I guess?
You're leaving out the critical question: why did Wade sign the contract if the contract itself is illegal?
Who said the contract is illegal, portions are void or voidable. Even if not void or voidable that would be evidence to use in the anti-trust case against LSU and the NCAA.
So, Wade would have a cause to void that portion of the contract and if not successful just amend and sue under anti-trust law. I would just probably sue directly under anti-trust law, but he could just enforce the contract see how that goes. Of course, on Wade the damages would be a lot less (contract set to expire).... so it might be just easier to get a new job for more money.
In Pearl's case, the NCAA would be look at a quarter billion, hence, no real action.
I'm actually baffled why you guys are still on this.... this isn't going anywhere. Everything doesn't go to court, especially if people do what people tell them. Which is why DOJ Anti-trust Division just sends letter to get the criminal NCAA back in line... no court needed.
