Chris Speilman sues Ohio State & IMG

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

That's I suppose a more accurate way to put it. That said, people are allowed to work and provide for themselves, generally speaking, and most similar types of contract (non-compete clauses specifically) have been struck down time and time again in courts for violating someone's "right to work" (in quotes since it isn't a constitutional right).

No they haven't. This isn't like a non-compete. Non-competes are after you leave a job. Not concurrent.

Apple can stop me in a contract from working for Google at the same time.

And "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a right, IMO. Inalienable, in fact.

The last one meant "thriving" or "prosperity" in the 1700s. That is… working and being paid.

[Pretzel]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

No they haven't. This isn't like a non-compete. Non-competes are after you leave a job. Not concurrent.

Apple can stop me in a contract from working for Google at the same time.

And "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a right, IMO. Inalienable, in fact.

The last one meant "thriving" or "prosperity" in the 1700s. That is… working and being paid.

I meant that it isn't explicitly saying that you have the right to work, though it is implied by the pursuit of happiness and that is why non-compete clauses generally fail to hold any water.

Apple can stop you from working for Google at the same time, certainly, but do you think they can stop you from creating your own Youtube channel where you perform various device teardowns so long as you avoid releasing any sort of proprietary information? I'm fairly certain that a lawsuit filed by Apple over something like that would go nowhere and if they used it as grounds for termination the employee would most certainly be getting unemployment benefits as it wouldn't be "for cause".

I think the example I provided there would be a more apples to apples comparison to the football player who made football related content. The football player

I get that the NCAA doesn't allow it in their rules, and I also understand that they currently can "terminate" the player and rescind their scholarship according to whatever agreement was signed by the player (to become NCAA eligible you go through a lot of hoops on their website, I learned that firsthand, and that includes the agreement for their code of conduct). From browsing the Youtube channel of the aforementioned kicker, it looks like they did just that and took away his scholarship (or, more likely to be accurate, took away his eligibility which caused the school to take the scholarship). I don't think the rules are all that fair to the student athletes, but I understand something like that is no different than an at-will employer firing you for the color of shoes you wore (though the college player won't get unemployment benefits). In that regard I've changed my stance in that the NCAA can probably do the shitty stuff they do, even if it is shitty stuff that they're doing. 

I have a different opinion on whether the NCAA has the right to use the likeness of a player well after the fact, from the original topic. While the player is at the college they are being compensated for the use of their likeness, but years and years after the fact that relationship between the player and the NCAA is long finished. If they want to advertise using the player's likeness, they need to compensate the ex-player appropriately and receive approval beforehand.

The argument that the player agreed to have their likeness used for all eternity is a terrible argument, because cases similar to this have been thrown out as a result of the contract not clearly defining the lifetime commitment:

Quote

Plaintiff -appellee was injured while employed as brakeman by the defendant-appellant company. An officer of the company urged plaintiff not to enter suit, saying: "We are going to give you a job for life, if you listen to me; there is something you can have at Baltimore or at Washington, as switchman, lots of jobs." After recovering from his injury, plaintiff was employed by the defendant as switchman for twenty-two years with only a single interruption of three months when plaintiff was "on call". In 1931 the job was abolished, plaintiff was discharged and he brought suit for damages for the breach of the oral contract of the defendant to employ him for life in consideration of his forbearance to sue on the claim. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the lower court and defendant appealed. Held: Judgment reversed. Since neither the type of work to be done, nor the wages to be received were specified, the contract was too indefinite to be enforced.

Source: University of Maryland

The type of advertising that will be done years into the future is definitely not specified in the NCAA agreements (from my recollection), though they do have the standard, "We'll use it for whatever the hell we want to use it for" type clauses. When contracts get too broad, such as a lifetime guarantee of using someone's likeness in exchange for very little, the contract would likely be unenforceable due to either being too indefinite or a lack of consideration towards the player. The NCAA offers the player the opportunity to play during their college career, which is certainly consideration to have their likeness used during the college career and have broadcasts of them shown throughout the future. I would be very interested in hearing them try to argue, however, that there is still consideration to then turn around and use that person's likeness in advertisements for the life of the player without any further compensation. I think it wouldn't stand up, but I don't know for certain either way.

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, Pretzel said:

 I'm fairly certain that a lawsuit filed by Apple over something like that would go nowhere and if they used it as grounds for termination the employee would most certainly be getting unemployment benefits as it wouldn't be "for cause".

It may not go anywhere, but they have the money to keep the pressure on, why your typical Youtube personality doesn't.

The NCAA isn't an employer because they are not paying the student anything. The school isn't an employer either. Some will say that the school is paying them with a scholarship, but legally they are not considered an employer. They are not required to provide the same things normal employers are required to. I put scholarships as more of a discount on tuition, not actually considered income for the student. It isn't like they are receiving a loan.

The non-compete clause is more inline with the schools naming certain schools that the player can not go to (have to sit out a year) if they want to transfer. Example, an Auburn player was not allowed to go directly to any schools in the SEC, Ohio State, USC, etc... That is more inline with a non-compete clause. The player would then be using their abilities against Auburn.

The only argument that the NCAA has made is that they are student - athletes and the student comes first. The student should not be allowed to make money because it is amateurism. I have no qualms with the schools not paying them salaries. I think there are many hurdles to this outcome. One of which would be the privatization of the athletic departments to separate title IX from the equation. I have qualms with the NCAA banning them from making money off their popularity as a player. They should get a cut of every merchandise sold. If they have time to go out and sign some autographs for some money, then fine. Probably 95% of athletes will make no money because they are not in a popular sport.

 

[iacas]

Tyler, leave out the other arguments. You're hurting your case. Apple (and Microsoft, and Google, etc.) can - and do - have things like that in their contracts, and they are enforceable.

Hell, I had to have a special provision included in my contract years ago because I wrote a blog and wanted to keep being able to do it, so long as I didn't divulge anything proprietary or offer an opinion on something that was not public (even if I was discussing a rumor that was public).

20 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I have a different opinion on whether the NCAA has the right to use the likeness of a player well after the fact, from the original topic. While the player is at the college they are being compensated for the use of their likeness, but years and years after the fact that relationship between the player and the NCAA is long finished. If they want to advertise using the player's likeness, they need to compensate the ex-player appropriately and receive approval beforehand.

I agree.

Though I'm still not sure where I stand on whether college athletes should actually be PAID.

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Though I'm still not sure where I stand on whether college athletes should actually be PAID.

I think that they are paid, with their free tuition as well as room and board. They're paid, essentially, $40,000-100,000 a year, depending on the school they attend. That said, I believe they shouldn't be banned from making additional money on their own time so long as it isn't actively detrimental to the NCAA or their college. That's not how it is now, but it is how I feel it should be.

[saevel25]

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I think that they are paid, with their free tuition as well as room and board. They're paid, essentially, $40,000-100,000 a year, depending on the school they attend. That said, I believe they shouldn't be banned from making additional money on their own time so long as it isn't actively detrimental to the NCAA or their college. That's not how it is now, but it is how I feel it should be.

The NCAA will claim that it is a detriment because it will cut into their bottom line. Same with the college.

---

The only argument the NCAA ever had is that college sports is amateurism and amateurs sports do not get paid. Its a weak argument. It stinks of status quo. I think they could make a system that lets a player get paid in some proportion to the revenues created by their image. Image defined as anything that could be associated to that player sold in a store, advertisements that use their image, etc... I don't think the NCAA should ban players from making money on the side from selling their autographs. Their could be regulations on that. Maybe only a certain number of hours a week or number of autographs can be spent signing autographs. Maybe they have to be sold through the school.

It is kinda ridiculous that athletes can't make money off their popularity because the NCAA's argument is that it is an amateur sport.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I think that they are paid, with their free tuition as well as room and board. They're paid, essentially, $40,000-100,000 a year, depending on the school they attend. That said, I believe they shouldn't be banned from making additional money on their own time so long as it isn't actively detrimental to the NCAA or their college. That's not how it is now, but it is how I feel it should be.

It's not pay. It's a scholarship.

Pay you can spend how you choose. Scholarships you must spend getting a worthless degree in "Communications" or something.

49 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

The only argument the NCAA ever had is that college sports is amateurism and amateurs sports do not get paid. Its a weak argument. It stinks of status quo. 

I don't think that's a weak argument at all. They are amateurs.

Also, consider that whatever rule you are thinking of has to apply to all sports, all colleges, and all genders, ages, etc.

The more I think about it the more I end up actually siding with the NCAA. Not on things after the athlete leaves. But during their time in school.

[Buckeyebowman]

Can "amateur" sports still be considered amateur when a handful of people are raking in money, hand over fist, because of it?

I think when you are actively "selling" anything, the word amateur goes right out the window!

 

[saevel25]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:07 PM, Buckeyebowman said:

Can "amateur" sports still be considered amateur when a handful of people are raking in money, hand over fist, because of it?

I think when you are actively "selling" anything, the word amateur goes right out the window!

Sure it can. Amateurism is based solely around the players not getting compensated for playing a sport. It has nothing to do with the coaches making money.

 

[Bucki1968]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 4:01 PM, David in FL said:

Florida and OSU, the two most arrogant, narcissistic schools and fans in the country.  Why am I not surprised?   

Don't forget Alabama fans. I think they are the funniest.