bamawriter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 26,704
- Likes
- 17,521
1. its pretty clear the NCAA is not exempt from anti-trust law... duh... yet somehow how they paid lawyers millions to push that stupid ****
Agreed. But how does that fact lead to Wade's contract being unenforceable?
2. the NCAA is a monopoly in a general sense... again they admitted to that at the lower court
Being a de facto monopoly does not automatically mean there are anti-trust issues in their enforcement actions.
3. the Supreme Court is making it pretty clear that interfering with commerce at scale via their association is not such a good idea
Okay. But you should be able to quote the ruling to define what that means.
Of course the ruling only is a direct decision on the educational benefits, but they are green lighting it all because there is no exemptions to anti-trust law for the NCAA. (duh)
I don't think you can present any legal interpretation that will support that. You're saying "They said X, but what they really mean is everything between A and Z."
The Supreme Court did say Congress can change the law and they opened up (or somewhat) agree with the fact that individual conferences could have more power to enforce.
But Congress has yet to change the applicable law.
This is pure anti-trust law, there is nothing special about anything of this.
For rhe 4th time: how? All you've said is that it is without any detail. What is the specific anti-trust violation?