As we enjoy college football this fall, keep in mind the NCAA believes there is a “slavery-loophole” that justifies not formally paying players

GRR Spartan wrote:Some people voluntarily became share croppers and found out it wasn’t a whole lot difference between that and slavery.

Trapper Gus wrote:The argument is that it is not "involuntary servitude" I guess.

Seems like even a poor lawyer would point out that it is required to get to the NFL and thus is "Involuntary" ...

It is at least the fourth case in recent years in which student athletes have cited the FLSA in challenging the NCAA’s argument that student athletes must work for free due to the tradition of amateurism that defines the “economic reality” of collegiate sports.

That defense is tied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s 1992 decision in Vanskike v. Peters, which ruled that federal inmates aren’t entitled to minimum wages for prison labor. The 13th Amendment banned slavery, but it exempted those convicted of crimes. In previous cases, the NCAA has used the exception to get cases dismissed before the court could apply employment tests, Johnson’s attorneys said.

The nonprofit argues that because players are defined by the context they play in—the economic reality of amateurism—their circumstances preclude the need for employment tests.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:It's making them all mushy brained too... don't forget that.


GO GREEN!


(we are totally aware that the more you think about this shit in totality the worse it is... but for fucks sake, I need something to look forward to.)

Turtleneck wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The argument is that it is not "involuntary servitude" I guess.

Seems like even a poor lawyer would point out that it is required to get to the NFL and thus is "Involuntary" ...

Yes, but it cuts much deeper, right? To me, The NCAA's argument also suggests that even if college athletes were engaged in involuntary servitude, they are exempt from the appropriate constitutional protections. The NCAA continues to rely on precedent that exempts federal inmates from the protections of the 13th Amendment. From last year:

It is at least the fourth case in recent years in which student athletes have cited the FLSA in challenging the NCAA’s argument that student athletes must work for free due to the tradition of amateurism that defines the “economic reality” of collegiate sports.

That defense is tied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s 1992 decision in Vanskike v. Peters, which ruled that federal inmates aren’t entitled to minimum wages for prison labor. The 13th Amendment banned slavery, but it exempted those convicted of crimes. In previous cases, the NCAA has used the exception to get cases dismissed before the court could apply employment tests, Johnson’s attorneys said.

The nonprofit argues that because players are defined by the context they play in—the economic reality of amateurism—their circumstances preclude the need for employment tests.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/college-athlete-pay-suit-confronts-ncaas-supreme-court-loss

Turtleneck wrote:You send an email to the NCAA because they are the ones making the connection.

Turtleneck wrote:Would the Big Ten share revenue with its football players? Penn State could be the first test case

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/penn-state/2022-big-ten-penn-state-revenue-sharing-20220726.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=edit_social_share_twitter_traffic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=&utm_term=&int_promo=