CB Xavier Lucas is transferring to Miami

[TheOriginalCane]

Whose idea is this?

Because there is literally NOTHING legal that can be done to prevent a person from making money off his/her Name, Image and Likeness. Of course there can be a collectively bargained salary cap as we have is most pro sports, but that is entirely different from limiting earning potential from NIL.

If Congress actually passes this law and tries to extend the earnings cap to NIL, the Supreme Court will strike down the law as unconstitutional, which it would be. And it might be struck down even on the basis of a wage limitation considering that the student athletes have no voice in the matter.

So all this would accomplish, at best, is to set wages at 20k, and then colleges and collectives would offer NIL in addition to the wages.

Well, they'll strike down the rule as a violation of antitrust laws. I don't think the Constitution has ever opined on minimum or maximum earnings.

The real problem that many posters are having is that "NIL" (as we currently know it) includes...a lot more than...the initials "N" and "I" and "L" would suggest.

 

[Stats02]

Again, a hypothetical exercise but where in the Constitution does it say that a maximum wage law is prohibited? In this scenario, the total earnings that a college student can make is set at $20K (through the school, NIL, etc).

Thank you for the clarification. So, this is just a thought exercise and not an actual bill passed by Congress. I was reading thru the earlier messages and tired to google where this had become signed legislation into law. I wasn’t able to find anything. Yes, certainly seems unconstitutional if this scenario were to happen.

 

[AtlAtty]

Well, they'll strike down the rule as a violation of antitrust laws. I don't think the Constitution has ever opined on minimum or maximum earnings.

The real problem that many posters are having is that "NIL" (as we currently know it) includes...a lot more than...the initials "N" and "I" and "L" would suggest.

I think maximum wage restrictions would be an interesting legal question. We know they can be bargained for as in the NBA, but can they be legislated without the “aggrieved” party having any say?

 

[AtlAtty]

I'm all about free markets. But to be fair, Locke and Smith believed in regulation. I loved what Friedman introduced in Chile and his overall efficient market philosophy. But even he agreed some governance was necessary (his son was the psycho who called for anarcho-capitalism).

All that said, this specific situation with the NCAA and Congress feels like cronyism not a well-regulated capitalist system. Players are not getting a say. That's not at all in the spirit of our economic philosophy. I feel it's un-American and (no lawyer) arguably unconstitutional.

All markets have to be regulated to a degree, but its that degree of of regulation that frustrates me because so-called free markets advocates are the first to run to regulation when they don’t have the patience to wait for the market.

The free market requires patience. It does not fix everything tomorrow, but when it does make the fix, it’s typically a better fix than what occurs with regulations, even with the best intentions. I am convinced that given a few years the NIL market will correct itself.

 

[Yoyo423]

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

That's right..should have said probably illegal or unlawful. Will likely be struck down by the supreme court.

 

[CanefaninBuckeyeland]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

Would 100% be unconstitutional...

Uncertain. A maximum wage law has never been tested (although we came close during WW2).

And yet, still more likely to happen than any oncoming litigation from the crack legal minds in Madison.

 

[GojiraCane]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

I would think that the ruling that Title IX is not applicable to student payouts probably scraps any agreement that the Wisconsin players signed last year.

 

[Canes Legacy]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

 

[The U is back to work]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

 

[Atom Atlas]

 

[BoxingRobes]

Has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

Hasn't the SCOTUS already started to go down this road, as its all a series of Antitrust cases - making it constitutional? The Alston case confirmed NCAA's rules limiting compensation wouldn't or couldn't continue to stand without changes...they've changed quite a bit since, but capping compensation reads like it'd eventually fall on the SCOTUS' desk for a ruling.

Perhaps more of a constitutional interpretation issue...idk.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Hasn't the SCOTUS already started to go down this road, as its all a series of Antitrust cases - making it constitutional? The Alston case confirmed NCAA's rules limiting compensation wouldn't or couldn't continue to stand without changes...they've changed quite a bit since, but capping compensation reads like it'd eventually fall on the SCOTUS' desk for a ruling.

Perhaps more of a constitutional interpretation issue...idk.

No.

A Supreme Court ruling doesn't make something "constitutional". The Constitution does.

Unless and until someone can point to a maximum or minimum wage clause in The Constitution, this has nothing to do with The Constitution.

 

[BoxingRobes]

No.

A Supreme Court ruling doesn't make something "constitutional". The Constitution does.

Unless and until someone can point to a maximum or minimum wage clause in The Constitution, this has nothing to do with The Constitution.

You’re right that the Constitution itself doesn’t explicitly mention issues like maximum or minimum wages. However, the Supreme Court often makes rulings based on constitutional principles that guide the interpretation of how those principles apply to specific situations.

In the case of the NCAA and compensation, the Court isn’t saying compensation itself is unconstitutional; they’re applying antitrust law (which is rooted in constitutional principles, like the Commerce Clause) to a situation where the NCAA's rules were found to be anticompetitive. So, while the Constitution doesn’t directly address things like wages or compensation caps, the Court still uses constitutional frameworks to decide whether regulations (like the NCAA's compensation limits) are fair or constitutional under existing laws.

So, while it’s not a "constitutional wage cap" issue per se, SCOTUS can rule on whether certain compensation restrictions are constitutional through other legal principles, like antitrust. The Alston case is an example of that interpretation.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You’re right that the Constitution itself doesn’t explicitly mention issues like maximum or minimum wages. However, the Supreme Court often makes rulings based on constitutional principles that guide the interpretation of how those principles apply to specific situations.

In the case of the NCAA and compensation, the Court isn’t saying compensation itself is unconstitutional; they’re applying antitrust law (which is rooted in constitutional principles, like the Commerce Clause) to a situation where the NCAA's rules were found to be anticompetitive. So, while the Constitution doesn’t directly address things like wages or compensation caps, the Court still uses constitutional frameworks to decide whether regulations (like the NCAA's compensation limits) are fair or constitutional under existing laws.

So, while it’s not a "constitutional wage cap" issue per se, SCOTUS can rule on whether certain compensation restrictions are constitutional through other legal principles, like antitrust. The Alston case is an example of that interpretation.

You realize I got an A in Con Law with Professor Swan, right?

The Alston case turns on antitrust laws, not the US Constitution.

Also, please note that the commerce clause DELEGATES the power to regulate interstate commerce to the US Congress. Again, there is a difference between powers and rights which originate in the Constitution and the laws that are passed by Congress. They are just different things.

The Supreme Court interpreting a US law is just that. It's not related to "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".

 

[PRcane787]

Hella good to see buddy home

 

[BoxingRobes]

You realize I got an A in Con Law with Professor Swan, right?

The Alston case turns on antitrust laws, not the US Constitution.

Also, please note that the commerce clause DELEGATES the power to regulate interstate commerce to the US Congress. Again, there is a difference between powers and rights which originate in the Constitution and the laws that are passed by Congress. They are just different things.

The Supreme Court interpreting a US law is just that. It's not related to "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".

I agree that the Alston case primarily involves antitrust law, but that law itself is deeply tied to constitutional principles, particularly the Commerce Clause. While you're right that the Commerce Clause delegates power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Constitution also sets up the judicial system to interpret those laws when conflicts arise.

The Court isn't simply interpreting a statute—it’s applying constitutional principles (such as antitrust rules rooted in the Commerce Clause) to determine if certain regulations, like the NCAA’s compensation restrictions, violate the broader constitutional framework of fairness and free markets. So, while it’s a nuanced issue and not about a "constitutional wage cap" directly, the Court is indeed making a constitutional judgment about whether the NCAA’s rules unfairly restrict competition, which ties into larger constitutional ideas of free commerce and individual rights.

 

[brcane1]

Thought I'd check in on the status of Wisky's lawsuit. I'll see myself out.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I agree that the Alston case primarily involves antitrust law, but that law itself is deeply tied to constitutional principles, particularly the Commerce Clause. While you're right that the Commerce Clause delegates power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Constitution also sets up the judicial system to interpret those laws when conflicts arise.

The Court isn't simply interpreting a statute—it’s applying constitutional principles (such as antitrust rules rooted in the Commerce Clause) to determine if certain regulations, like the NCAA’s compensation restrictions, violate the broader constitutional framework of fairness and free markets. So, while it’s a nuanced issue and not about a "constitutional wage cap" directly, the Court is indeed making a constitutional judgment about whether the NCAA’s rules unfairly restrict competition, which ties into larger constitutional ideas of free commerce and individual rights.

Nope.

45 page opinion. All it does is mention (a) the Sherman Antitrust Act, and (b) other court cases. Never talks about the Constitution at all.