4 ms·

Option 4: you're a member of a voluntary organization, and your state can't change our bylaws. Which is what's probably gonna happen.

Judgmentality 7y ago
That's the same as Option 1.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
The state can change the bylaws. Or at least make the bylaws unenforceable within state boundaries, which has the same effect. I believe that is what California has done here. For another example, suppose there were some chemical company organization that had a bylaw like, "You cannot print information about carcinogenic ingredients in your products." But then California passes prop 65. The bylaws are now moot -- if you have to choose whether to comply with bylaws or state law, you either have to take your ball and go home, or the bylaws have to change.
wmurmann 7y ago
Wouldn't this make it illegal to prevent players from profiting from endorsements ? Voluntary organizations can't break the law.
lacker 7y ago
I think the state can change the bylaws of a voluntary organization, or at least make them illegal. From the official digest of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... : The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. AFAICT this law would make the current NCAA bylaws illegal in California. Any California player who accepted an endorsement and was subsequently prevented from playing would be able to sue.
- toast0 7y ago
  That only applies to the NCAA if the NCAA continues to operate in California. If they decide that their current rules are more important than the participation of California schools, they can leave the state and prevent their member schools from playing in California or with teams from California and avoid California's legal jurisdiction.
  - thenewnewguy 7y ago
    Correct, which is option 1 from the parent post. MisterBastahrd seems to believe that the NCAA can just say "you have to follow these rules if you join us even if you're from CA", which is not true because the bill outlaws those rules. The 4th option that they're suggesting only serves to open them up to lawsuits should they ever try to enforce the rule for CA players.
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      This is why the bill is unconstitutional. From Miller vs. NCAA, P 28: 'Under Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. at 2084, when a state law directly regulates interstate commerce, it can generally be struck down without further inquiry. The Statute directly regulates interstate commerce and runs afoul of the Commerce Clause both because it regulates a product in interstate commerce beyond Nevada's state boundaries, and because it puts the NCAA, and whatever other national collegiate athletic associations may exist, in jeopardy of being subjected to inconsistent legislation arising from the injection of Nevada's regulatory scheme into the jurisdiction of other states. Because the Statute violates the Commerce Clause per se, we need not balance the burden on interstate commerce against the local benefit derived from the Statute.' Replace Nevada with California and you've got the same issue. A state is not allowed to unilaterally make special statutory carve-out demands on a national organization. They can say "hey universities, your student-athletes must be allowed to profit from their own likenesses." Totally within the state's power. They can't say "hey, NCAA, screw your rules, we decided to make up our own for you and you have to deal with it."
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
DeonPenny 7y ago
This is Option 1. They can't litigate a state to change the law. And given that the only choice is to remove the largest state from you organization. With that cali makes their own league and now the NCAA has a huge competition for the top talent. Why would you go to school anywhere else than Cali.
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  They don't have to litigate a state to change a law. They can simply say "your student-athlete is ineligible to participate." Can California create their own league? Sure. Will doing so decimate their schools' athletic budgets? Probably. There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization, and it's going to get particularly ugly when the feds discover schools colluding with rich boosters talent in order to attract them there because of Title IX.
  - wgerard 7y ago
    > There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization Uh, this would be true of many states but not of states like CA/TX/FL. There would absolutely be demand for a CA-only athletic organization. There's a reason California did this and not, say, Alaska (no offense to Alaska of course).
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      There's not one example of a regional sports league that has had any sort of success in recent memory. One of the foundational reasons that the WWF / WWE became the dominant power in the wrestling market is that they were the first to ignore regional barriers. Rinse, repeat.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Every collegiate conference is regional. [0] Long flights are expensive and inconvenient. You could maybe justify a national conference for men's basketball, but that would eliminate all the minor sports and also would probably violate Title IX. [0] admittedly, minor confused conferences like Conference USA and Big 12 stretch the definition a little bit, but they're still essentially regional.

Judgmentality 7y ago

That's the same as Option 1.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago

The state can change the bylaws. Or at least make the bylaws unenforceable within state boundaries, which has the same effect. I believe that is what California has done here. For another example, suppose there were some chemical company organization that had a bylaw like, "You cannot print information about carcinogenic ingredients in your products." But then California passes prop 65. The bylaws are now moot -- if you have to choose whether to comply with bylaws or state law, you either have to take your ball and go home, or the bylaws have to change.

wmurmann 7y ago

Wouldn't this make it illegal to prevent players from profiting from endorsements ? Voluntary organizations can't break the law.

lacker 7y ago

I think the state can change the bylaws of a voluntary organization, or at least make them illegal. From the official digest of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... : The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student’s name, image, or likeness. AFAICT this law would make the current NCAA bylaws illegal in California. Any California player who accepted an endorsement and was subsequently prevented from playing would be able to sue.

toast0 7y ago
That only applies to the NCAA if the NCAA continues to operate in California. If they decide that their current rules are more important than the participation of California schools, they can leave the state and prevent their member schools from playing in California or with teams from California and avoid California's legal jurisdiction.
- thenewnewguy 7y ago
  Correct, which is option 1 from the parent post. MisterBastahrd seems to believe that the NCAA can just say "you have to follow these rules if you join us even if you're from CA", which is not true because the bill outlaws those rules. The 4th option that they're suggesting only serves to open them up to lawsuits should they ever try to enforce the rule for CA players.
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    This is why the bill is unconstitutional. From Miller vs. NCAA, P 28: 'Under Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. at 2084, when a state law directly regulates interstate commerce, it can generally be struck down without further inquiry. The Statute directly regulates interstate commerce and runs afoul of the Commerce Clause both because it regulates a product in interstate commerce beyond Nevada's state boundaries, and because it puts the NCAA, and whatever other national collegiate athletic associations may exist, in jeopardy of being subjected to inconsistent legislation arising from the injection of Nevada's regulatory scheme into the jurisdiction of other states. Because the Statute violates the Commerce Clause per se, we need not balance the burden on interstate commerce against the local benefit derived from the Statute.' Replace Nevada with California and you've got the same issue. A state is not allowed to unilaterally make special statutory carve-out demands on a national organization. They can say "hey universities, your student-athletes must be allowed to profit from their own likenesses." Totally within the state's power. They can't say "hey, NCAA, screw your rules, we decided to make up our own for you and you have to deal with it."
MisterBastahrd 7y ago

DeonPenny 7y ago

This is Option 1. They can't litigate a state to change the law. And given that the only choice is to remove the largest state from you organization. With that cali makes their own league and now the NCAA has a huge competition for the top talent. Why would you go to school anywhere else than Cali.

MisterBastahrd 7y ago
They don't have to litigate a state to change a law. They can simply say "your student-athlete is ineligible to participate." Can California create their own league? Sure. Will doing so decimate their schools' athletic budgets? Probably. There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization, and it's going to get particularly ugly when the feds discover schools colluding with rich boosters talent in order to attract them there because of Title IX.
- wgerard 7y ago
  > There's not going to be much national demand for a state-only organization Uh, this would be true of many states but not of states like CA/TX/FL. There would absolutely be demand for a CA-only athletic organization. There's a reason California did this and not, say, Alaska (no offense to Alaska of course).
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    There's not one example of a regional sports league that has had any sort of success in recent memory. One of the foundational reasons that the WWF / WWE became the dominant power in the wrestling market is that they were the first to ignore regional barriers. Rinse, repeat.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Every collegiate conference is regional. [0] Long flights are expensive and inconvenient. You could maybe justify a national conference for men's basketball, but that would eliminate all the minor sports and also would probably violate Title IX. [0] admittedly, minor confused conferences like Conference USA and Big 12 stretch the definition a little bit, but they're still essentially regional.