SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-07-23 10:02 PM - Post#353410
FYI: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivy-leagues- agreement...
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
03-08-23 07:56 AM - Post#353431
In response to SRP
Looks like there are more lawyers on the Ivy football board than here.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 09:03 AM - Post#353435
In response to Go Green
There are a lot of lawyers here. I don't think much of this lawsuit, but anyone can sue. They will have to define a market extremely narrowly to say that the Ivies' refusal to offer athletic scholarships reduces competition. Is this an agreement in restraint of trade? It's not price fixing.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8258
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 09:46 AM - Post#353438
In response to palestra38
Mike Jensen’s write up
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 434
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-08-23 10:04 AM - Post#353440
In response to Streamers
The intersection of sports and antitrust law has
never been an easy space to operate--witness the
Supreme Court's strange Curt Flood decision.
League rules are by definition "horizontal
agreements" among competitors and
arguably subject to "per se violation"
analysis.
If the "market" is college athletics, the Ivies
do not have market power. If, However, there market
is prestigious college credientials, the answer is
less obvious.
Plaintiffs present a sympathetic case. Should an 18 year old
kid from a family with modest financial resources
but real athletic and academic talent have to choose to take on
debt to go to the most prestigious school he can because those
schools want to uphold a particular model of amateurism?
I like Ivy sports as they are, but I am not in that kid's shoes.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:08 AM - Post#353441
In response to LocalTiger
Except for the fact that kids from modest financial backgrounds get free college under most Ivies' need based policies. This, like the attack on Ivy admissions, is really a right wing based white middle (or higher) class lawsuit attempting to disguise on whose behalf they are seeking a remedy.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
03-08-23 10:08 AM - Post#353442
In response to palestra38
Haven't read the complaint or analysis, but I disagree generally about whether an alleged agreement about scholarships cannot be classfied as "price-fixing", given the breadth of "price-fixing" definition. It is very broadly defined as basically any agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that affects prices (in this case, tuition).
www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/downl oad
I have questioned elsewhere whether the ivies can be forced to offer athletic scholarships, and I don't think this is a slam dunk (ha) case, but that is a different issue than whether an agreement not to grant athletic scholarships cannot be considered price fixing in the first place.
And at least people are talking about something other than the relative value of certain players.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:12 AM - Post#353444
In response to Streamers
My first impression, as noted above, is that this is not a price fixing agreement. We'll see if a motion to dismiss is filed.
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 434
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-08-23 10:12 AM - Post#353445
In response to sparman
The plaintiffs do not fit P38's description, and not all Ivies
exclude loans from financial aid packages.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 10:13 AM - Post#353446
In response to LocalTiger
This suit was inevitable.
When schools were allowed to start handing out 'cost of attendance' checks to athletes at the start of each semester - on top of their scholarships funds - I felt like the Ivy model was for sure going to get challenged in court.
Not being a lawyer I have no idea of the legal merits of the suit. But kids/parents having to decide between paying 6 figures for an Ivy education and going to college for free at a non-Ivy seems less and less sensible with each passing year.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:14 AM - Post#353447
In response to LocalTiger
Well, wouldn't the fact that the schools all have different financial aid policies demonstrate the lack of price fixing?
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 10:16 AM - Post#353449
In response to palestra38
But all the schools have agreed not to give full scholarships for sports.
Is that price fixing? I don't know enough about what that means legally.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:16 AM - Post#353450
In response to CM
But the competition to get into the Ivies and pay full price gets more intense and the admission rates keep dropping despite the fall-off of the college age population. While many private colleges are in financial distress, the Ivies are doing better than ever. People obviously feel that the investment is worth it, despite the cost.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 10:19 AM - Post#353451
In response to palestra38
I agree with all those things. Yet, I don't fully understand how having sports scholarships would negatively effect any of those current realities.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:19 AM - Post#353452
In response to CM
They have agreed only to give scholarships on the basis of need. Piano players, Albert Einsteins, dancers, etc. get no scholarships either for what they do. And the Ivies participate fully in offering NILs. I do not agree that this policy is anything like making millions from TV and ticket fees and paying the players nothing, which was the subject of the Kavanaugh discourse.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:20 AM - Post#353453
In response to CM
I agree with you. I would be fine with the Ivies offering scholarships. This is about whether they can be compelled to do so.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3058
Reg: 10-20-14
|
03-08-23 10:32 AM - Post#353454
In response to palestra38
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/03/08/lawsu it-...
At this time, this seems to be the first Ivy school paper writing about the lawsuit.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 10:42 AM - Post#353459
In response to rbg
Not for nothing, that writer for Yale wrote the heck out of that article.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 10:46 AM - Post#353460
In response to CM
Agreed. Accurately summarized the position of the plaintiff, when the Ivies would not comment, went back for a prior statement of the Ivies' position on merit scholarships and it is well written.
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 434
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-08-23 11:10 AM - Post#353463
In response to palestra38
The student journalist did a great job.
Too bad SI is withering away. This person
could be the next Grant Wahl.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8258
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 11:38 AM - Post#353466
In response to LocalTiger
They are all missing the point. The fact that all Ivy prices (at retail - along with the well-endowed smaller schools) all move their tuition/fees/boarding rates pretty much in unison is the very definition of price fixing. OTOH, The legal argument for forcing merit schollies completely evades me; athletic or otherwise.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21212
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-08-23 11:40 AM - Post#353467
In response to LocalTiger
Excellent article for a non-lawyer like myself.
As a sociologist, I see any number of legitimate complaints here. The existing policies clearly favor legacies who have a much easier time of getting admitted in the first place and, everything being equal, are able to afford it regardless of how much money, if any, is awarded to them.
Edited by penn nation on 03-08-23 11:41 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8258
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-08-23 12:39 PM - Post#353474
In response to penn nation
As a sociologist, I see any number of legitimate complaints here. The existing policies clearly favor legacies who have a much easier time of getting admitted in the first place and, everything being equal, are able to afford it regardless of how much money, if any, is awarded to them.
Keep in mind, one needs to apply ED to get legacy preference. The whole ED system is also suspect ethically, and perhaps legally; but I do not see how relevant this is to the athletic/merit scholarship issue.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-08-23 07:49 PM - Post#353503
In response to Streamers
You can hate legacy admissions or believe in them but I don’t see how that has anything to do with athletic scholarships. And the Ivies’ financial aid packages are really strong, which makes me wonder how much the plaintiffs’ Brown educations cost them. I paid way under sticker price for both of my kid’s college educations. One went to a “Top-20” university in the Midwest and received a substantial merit-based scholarship. The other is at an Ivy with generous need-based aid (we are paying even less for him than child #1 despite a household income that puts us in 90+% of US household income). Both educations cost us less than in-state tuition would have been to Rutgers.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-08-23 09:44 PM - Post#353516
In response to TigerFan
All true, but full scholarships plus cost of attendance payments will beat financial aid every day of the week. I believe the cost of attendance checks can be as high as $4k/semester now, which is not nothing.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-09-23 12:13 AM - Post#353531
In response to CM
I would just say that the more-advanced understanding of law and economics generated by Williamson, Klein, Crawford, Alchian, Demsetz, etc. insists that non-standard contractual arrangements are not to be written off as per se abuses of market power. My guess is that the institutional equilibrium for an IL that had athletic scholarships required would be a drop to Division III or some other way to circumvent the requirement.
What I don't see is how the plaintiff's argument wouldn't also make DIII illegal as a price-fixing conspiracy.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8258
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 12:14 AM - Post#353532
In response to TigerFan
I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about financial aid, but the Ivies definition of ‘need’ has some serious flaws. Merit based aid available at other quality schools often becomes a necessity for many families who would otherwise qualify for Ivy admission. I congratulate you for navigating that maze successfully.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 08:17 AM - Post#353550
In response to SRP
This was where I landed as well - you don't have to have scholarships, but you do if you want to remain D1.
I've been saying for some time, with the covid season cancellation being the most egregious example, that the IL has been treating its athletes like D3 anyway, while trumpeting them as D1.
|
digamma
Masters Student
Posts: 468
Loc: Minneapolis
Reg: 11-27-11
|
03-09-23 03:57 PM - Post#353584
In response to CM
Wouldn't the same theory also apply to scholarship limits by sport at D-1? I mean everyone is agreeing to only give 11.7 baseball scholarships, or whatever it is.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 04:17 PM - Post#353586
In response to digamma
Hey guys, let's not poo poo legacy admissions just yet. My kids are 5 and 1, so I need those advantages to be around a bit longer, lol
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 06:39 PM - Post#353600
In response to digamma
I don't know the details of legal basis of the suit, but from my understanding it would be more like if one school offered 3 full scholarships and another 15. I believe there are agreements in place as to the total number of scholarships a school can offer per sport.
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 434
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-09-23 06:53 PM - Post#353602
In response to CM
There is a difference between rules imposed by a governing body
(the NCAA), and agreements reached among competitors
(the Ivy Leagueschools).
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-09-23 07:01 PM - Post#353604
In response to LocalTiger
Indeed. This is why I'm just speculating and admit my ignorance on the legal basis of this.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-09-23 07:48 PM - Post#353607
In response to CM
The distinction between a "governing body" and a group of schools is ridiculous. The IL is as much a governing body as any other conference with rules.
And to CM, I don't see how DIII itself would be legal under the claimed doctrine of the lawsuit.
In fact, no agreement among competitors (in any sporting arena)that limited the resources used could stand up. Standardization of engines in auto racing would unfairly affect the vendors of other engines. Restrictions on roster size limit opportunities. And on and on.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-09-23 07:52 PM - Post#353609
In response to CM
Would the same legal arguments hold for non-athletic, merit scholarships? Performing artists? mathematicians? Etc? The schools compete for talent of all sorts and I don’t believe any provide merit-based scholarships for any of these talents. What am I missing?
|
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts: 434
Age: 58
Reg: 11-15-17
|
03-09-23 08:39 PM - Post#353614
In response to TigerFan
SRP, are you aware of other conferences with rules restricting
scholarships beyond NCAA limitations. The Patriot League used to, but no more.
as a general matter, antitrust law is concerned with agreements
among competitors: it does not scrutinize rules imposed by
a central authority.
You may think that is ridiculous, but that is antitrust law.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2139
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 08:41 PM - Post#353615
In response to SRP
The distinction between a "governing body" and a group of schools is ridiculous. The IL is as much a governing body as any other conference with rules.
And to CM, I don't see how DIII itself would be legal under the claimed doctrine of the lawsuit.
In fact, no agreement among competitors (in any sporting arena)that limited the resources used could stand up. Standardization of engines in auto racing would unfairly affect the vendors of other engines. Restrictions on roster size limit opportunities. And on and on.
Formula 1 has a standard powerplant configuration. Each supplier (Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda (Red Bull) and Renault) must conform to the standard, but each has the latitude to determine how best to do so.
Edited by weinhauers_ghost on 03-09-23 08:42 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-09-23 09:31 PM - Post#353617
In response to LocalTiger
There is a difference between rules imposed by a governing body
(the NCAA), and agreements reached among competitors
(the Ivy Leagueschools).
I do not believe that is true under the 2021 Supreme Court NIL case (NCAA v. Alston):
"On June 21, 2021, in NCAA v. Alston, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) rules limiting education-related compensation that colleges and universities can provide to student-athletes violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Slip Op. 20-512 (June 21, 2021). In the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court affirmed that the NCAA is not exempt from the antitrust laws, in the process sending a shot across the bow of colleges and universities (and other not-for-profit entities), stating, “[T]o the extent [the NCAA proposes] a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade – that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports[] and money – we cannot agree.”
Making this an unusual antitrust case, the parties did not challenge the district court’s definition of the relevant market and they did not dispute that the NCAA enjoys monopsony power in that market (nor was there any argument that the plaintiffs had to show more than harm in just the labor market – for example, harm to the consumer market for college sports). There was no question that the NCAA member schools competed for student-athletes, and there was no dispute that the NCAA’s restrictions decreased the compensation that student-athletes would otherwise receive but for those rules (and that such decreases in compensation drove down participation in the relevant labor market). Justice Gorsuch succinctly captured these unique areas of agreement, observing that “this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control.”
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-cou rt-ho...
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-10-23 04:29 AM - Post#353626
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Yes, different racing leagues have rules that in different ways restrain trade. F2 and F3 have standard engines that everyone must use, done explicitly to limit what can be paid to engine designers and manufacturers. Other leagues have other rules aimed at reducing participants’ expenditures on equipment. By the strict logic that done of the justices seem to embrace, these would be illegal collusive restraints on trade.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-10-23 08:28 AM - Post#353628
In response to SRP
Harking back to my original criticism of the suit, I am certain the Ivies WILL challenge the limitation of the suit's relevant market to the Ivies as well as the allegation that the League's schools' agreement to give only need-based aid constitutes the per se violation of "price fixing". When one reads Justice Gorsuch's words, I don't see this case fitting within the same parameters at all.
As an aside, 7 of the 9 Justices went to Ivy League schools as undergraduates and only Barrett didn't go to either Harvard or Yale Law Schools. Query whether that might have an ultimate impact.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
03-11-23 03:53 PM - Post#353722
In response to LocalTiger
SRP, are you aware of other conferences with rules restricting
scholarships beyond NCAA limitations. The Patriot League used to, but no more.
as a general matter, antitrust law is concerned with agreements
among competitors: it does not scrutinize rules imposed by
a central authority.
You may think that is ridiculous, but that is antitrust law.
As others have mentioned, Alston seems to think that the NCAA is an agreement among competitors. Since it got its modern powers in large part to keep Penn and Notre Dame from sucking up all the TV football money in the '50s, that makes a lot of sense. And as others have pointed out, if you can't justify eight schools agreeing not to give schollies, how can you justify over 400 DIII schools doing the same thing? I'm sure there are some alums of Mt. Union's football program that would be willing to donate money for scholarships, for instance. Same with limitations in other sports. Also, the "Stanford and Duke can do it" thing cuts both ways: if smart and athletically talented players can get free rides at places like that, that means the Ivies have competition in the high-falutin' school market, which is probably the more relevant one.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 170
Reg: 03-08-07
|
Antitrust lawsuit over. scholarships
03-12-23 03:45 PM - Post#353909
In response to LocalTiger
Deleted
Edited by Dial Lodge on 03-12-23 03:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Penn90
Masters Student
Posts: 574
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-23-23 07:30 PM - Post#354966
In response to Dial Lodge
New column about the lawsuit via Yahoo Sports:
https://sports.yahoo.com/as-princeton-enters-s weet...
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-23-23 08:26 PM - Post#354967
In response to Penn90
I hope the plaintiffs spend as much time in trying to convince a court how this is either price fixing when it applies to all students, not just basketball players, or that it lessens competition when there are 370 some-odd schools that do offer Division 1 scholarships. The notion that schools must offer athletic scholarships on their own independent judgment is a "Mother, May I" argument. But you never know if they'll get a judge who didn't get into an Ivy.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
03-30-23 06:14 PM - Post#355393
In response to Penn90
https://www.thedp.com/article/2023/03/ivy-l eague-p...
Kayla Padilla is quoted extensively:
Padilla also highlighted the discrepancy in the way other universities invest in their athletes, from chartered flights, to fuel centers, to athlete-centered spaces. Though Padilla had nothing but kind things to say about Penn and its Athletic Department, she says the transfer recruitment experience has allowed her to see “what [she] might have missed out on.”
“Not to fault Penn, but the way they treat athletes at these programs is seen as a different priority,” Padilla said.
“It’s not a fault; it’s just different,” Padilla said of the way Penn and the Ivy League operate compared to other institutions. “People are used to that because it has been so long that the league has operated like this. I think things will definitely change if this lawsuit is successful, but, even if it’s not, I think it will put some pressure on the Ivy League to make changes that can still benefit the student-athletes without having to compromise.”"
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
04-01-23 03:35 PM - Post#355477
In response to LocalTiger
My understanding is that for many liberal arts colleges, DIII athletics is an indirect moneymaker because it induces otherwise scarce, full-tuition (especially male) student-athletes (often with above-average academics for that school) to enroll.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3058
Reg: 10-20-14
|
05-20-23 10:29 AM - Post#356368
In response to SRP
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/ivy -lea...
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 423
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-21-23 07:28 AM - Post#356380
In response to rbg
The march to D3 sports continues.
|
