This bill is sponsored by Senator Manchin of West Virginia and Senate Tuberville of Alabama. The most distinctive provision of this bill is that it would ban athletes from transferring in their first three years of eligibility unless there are exceptional circumstances. The link, unfortunately, is behind a pay wall. https://theathletic.com/4720292/2023/07/25/federal-nil-bills-manchin-tuberville-congress/
Another NIL bill in U.S. Senate
- Thread starter Retired711
- Start date
It's a backdoor anti-trust exemption. It also nullifies all state laws that contradict any NCAA rules. If you're a college football fan (generally) or a Rutgers fan (specifically) this is about the best you could hope for. It probably has no chance of passing.
what a remarkable misuse of govt time…with so many real issues largely ignored, these ******** decide to tackle this.
Probably won't pass the SCOTUS test even if passed. This is probably Manchin wanting support for his imagined 3rd Party run... meaning campaign dollars he can stock up and then end his career slowly doling out those dollars to other candidates in other races, remaining "relevant".. or having a relative manage said funds in a charity at a generous salary (Hello Chelsea!).
That means I think the Bill is irrelevant other than for what public discussion it might stir.
That means I think the Bill is irrelevant other than for what public discussion it might stir.
NIL isn't the main problem. The unfettered ability to transfer is what is causing chaos in college sports.
Why do you think the Supreme Court would nullify it? The anti-trust laws are created by Congress, and Congress can make whatever exemptions to them it wants.
They allowed NIL and struck down the NCAA rules.. not constitutional, right? So, yeah, I think they'd find such a law unconstitutional... if challenged... but I am no lawyer. I think whatever laws are made would have to apply to ALL college students to even have a shot.
What could be done by Congress is attacks via FUNDING. Grants and Federal contracts. If NIL is used at an institution, Congress will fund other institutions instead of them... something like that. SCOTUS has no say there as it is not a law that is involved. of course they do strike down executive orders regularly... but I'd guess there is a gray area in which effective work could be done... if the will to do so were there... and I doubt there is.
At this point, I think the election matters most and everything you see happen now is just public relations.
The Court did not strike down the NCAA's rules as unconstitutional. The Court instead struck them down as a violation of the anti-trust laws passed by Congress in the 19th and 20th century. Congress is free to amend the anti-trust laws to exempt the NCAA from those laws. That's what the legislation would do. It wouldn't be the first time that Congress has amended the anti-trust laws to carve out an exemption.
BTW (and I apologize if this is confusing), the Court did not deal with NIL at all. The case before the Court involved only the NCAA's restrictions on the educational benefits that can be provided to athletes as part of their scholarships. The NCAA has chosen to regard the Court's decision as invalidating its prohibitions on athletes receiving NIL. That was probably a wise choice, but the NCAA could have decided instead to keep fighting in court. Because the NCAA chose not to do that, it wants legislation to make clear what it can and cannot do to regulate NIL.
I don't know why the NCAA decided not to fight further, but I think there are at least two possible reasons. The first is that Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion blasting the NCAA's restrictions. Of course, he was speaking only for himself -- but it was a sign the NCAA would have trouble winning if it kept litigating. The second (and maybe more important) is that a number of states such as California had already passed laws allowing NIL, and so the NCAA's NIL restrictions were in trouble even if they weren't considered to be violations of the anti-trust laws.
Last edited:
Yes.. thanks for the correction. Regular folk like me can confuse everything SCOTUS does as "constitutional or not".. but really they defend The Law of the Land and only judge those Laws themselves against The Consitution... at least that's quick-take on it. They settle questions about laws.
At teh time of the ruling I remember posting that I thought it meant the NCAA could take a whole different path to control NIL... but as you said, they have not... maybe there's a "yet" in there.
My take on the NCAA is that it is about money and benefits to the people that run the NCAA. The perks. Their reason for being is to provide some kind of service to member institutions.. but some member institutions became more important than others because of their value in the main source of revenue to the NCAA.. the Basketball Tourney.
If the NCAA pushes too hard on control, the money programs.. who, likewise, have much control over their conferences for the same reason$$$$... will suggest leaving teh NCAA, starting their own organization with fewer members.. TV contracts including their own post-season tournament and a lot bigger payday for themselves. That would leave teh NCAA "big-wigs" scratching their asses while flying coach to provide "service" to their member institutions... they would likely play out the string, selling their assets and paying themselves pensions.
The NCAA is probably a lot like the UN... more style than substance.