Ivies sued over lack of athletic scholarships

[George64]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35812605/athletes-sue-ivy-league-no-scholarship-policy

The attorneys for the Brown athletes point out that other elite academic schools, such as Stanford and Duke, do offer athletic scholarships and "The natural, foreseeable, and intended result of the Ivy League Agreement is that Ivy League athletes have paid more for their education and earned less in compensation or reimbursement than they would have in the absence of the agreement."

This is arguably true, but no one forced these scholar-athletes to go Ivy.  As far as I know, athletes pay no more than other Ivy students with similar financial need.  Plus, Ivy athletes typically get very good summer jobs, although local auto dealerships are unlikely to pay as much for an athlete's NIL, as might some wealthy alum at an athletic powerhouse.
.

The problem with that argument is that someone who plays varsity anything for Brown would most likely ride the bench or dress for the practice squad (or not make the team at all) at any "athletic powerhouse." These athletes weren't getting any NIL money regardless. They chose Brown because of the reasons people usually choose Brown, and they've had their demonstrated financial need met.

I conflated two thoughts that I shouldn't have.  First, "no one forced these scholar-athletes to go Ivy." If they feel deprived because they're not remunerated for their athletic prowess, too bad, it was their choice.  Even Brown students should be able to do the math before commiting.  Second, some Ivy athletes are getting NIL money, for example, our own Jameson Wong, although I'm certain he's getting nothing close to what big-time scholar-athletes are getting.

[ugarte]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

[scoop85]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

I agree with your point, but FYI I believe all Patriot schools are now giving athletic scholarships

[upprdeck]

couldnt the same argument be made that kids who pay for school and dont get grants and scholies are also under the same hardship as those who do .  Some of these kids would not get into the school if not for playing sports .  Now non sport playing kid will sue because others got in for something they had to offer, that  they couldnt.

[Tcl123]

Everyone that applies know what they are getting into. If you don't like it, go play your sport elsewhere and get ur scholarship from that other school.

[ugarte]

Everyone that applies know what they are getting into. If you don't like it, go play your sport elsewhere and get ur scholarship from that other school.

a little too reductionist as legal analysis since there obviously are voluntary agreements that are deemed invalid under various statutory regimes.

[abmarks]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

I agree with your point, but FYI I believe all Patriot schools are now giving athletic scholarships

The linked ESPN article says "The policy, which dates back to 1954, makes the Ivy League the only Division I athletic conference that prohibits member schools from offering athletic scholarships."

So to ugarte's point about presuming a likelihood of scholarships being offered in a non collusive environment, I agree. The question is whether the law cares about just how likely it is, or if the law cares only that it could ever possibly happen.

[ugarte]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

I agree with your point, but FYI I believe all Patriot schools are now giving athletic scholarships

The linked ESPN article says "The policy, which dates back to 1954, makes the Ivy League the only Division I athletic conference that prohibits member schools from offering athletic scholarships."

So to ugarte's point about presuming a likelihood of scholarships being offered in a non collusive environment, I agree. The question is whether the law cares about just how likely it is, or if the law cares only that it could ever possibly happen.

fair enough re: patriot league. makes it a closer question anyway. there was probably internal agitation from inside the patriot league for a rule change and i don't know that the record will be as good among the ivies but that's a fact question that will require discovery.

[nshapiro]

Why would this lawsuit apply only to the Ivy League?
By extension, couldn't the NCAA be sued on the same grounds because they collude to prevent D3 schools from offering scholarships?

[abmarks]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

I agree with your point, but FYI I believe all Patriot schools are now giving athletic scholarships

The linked ESPN article says "The policy, which dates back to 1954, makes the Ivy League the only Division I athletic conference that prohibits member schools from offering athletic scholarships."

So to ugarte's point about presuming a likelihood of scholarships being offered in a non collusive environment, I agree. The question is whether the law cares about just how likely it is, or if the law cares only that it could ever possibly happen.

fair enough re: patriot league. makes it a closer question anyway. there was probably internal agitation from inside the patriot league for a rule change and i don't know that the record will be as good among the ivies but that's a fact question that will require discovery.

Except, after reading up a bit on antitrust and pricefixing law, it doesn't look like it requires proving that prices will change.  It's simply illegal to agree to fix a price.  

Using the financial aid case as an example, the issue was the *agreement* on aid levels. But it would be completely legal to offer the same aid levels when it happens absent that agreement.  If each of the ivy's independently implemented aid-level matching (aka price-matching) policies  on aid offers from their ivy competition, that'd be completely legal.

[ugarte]

the problem with the suit is that it presumes a likelihood of giving athletic scholarships in a non-collusive environemnt, as if it were the only conference to do so but neither the patriot nor all of D-III give athletic scholarships either, both by a rule agreed to and imposed by a higher body. i don't think it flies in a post-NIL world. the NLRB's ruling that student-athletes, in at least some circumstances, are subject to pervasive control of their time and behavior that they are employees is a more compelling argument but i don't know that Brown squash is tantamount to Alabama football.

I agree with your point, but FYI I believe all Patriot schools are now giving athletic scholarships

The linked ESPN article says "The policy, which dates back to 1954, makes the Ivy League the only Division I athletic conference that prohibits member schools from offering athletic scholarships."

So to ugarte's point about presuming a likelihood of scholarships being offered in a non collusive environment, I agree. The question is whether the law cares about just how likely it is, or if the law cares only that it could ever possibly happen.

fair enough re: patriot league. makes it a closer question anyway. there was probably internal agitation from inside the patriot league for a rule change and i don't know that the record will be as good among the ivies but that's a fact question that will require discovery.

Except, after reading up a bit on antitrust and pricefixing law, it doesn't look like it requires proving that prices will change.  It's simply illegal to agree to fix a price.  

Using the financial aid case as an example, the issue was the *agreement* on aid levels. But it would be completely legal to offer the same aid levels when it happens absent that agreement.  If each of the ivy's independently implemented aid-level matching (aka price-matching) policies  on aid offers from their ivy competition, that'd be completely legal.

i know that but the independent justification for competitive equity is distinct from the aid matching imo. i don't remember the content of the aid matching agreement but i wonder if it would have survived if "offer the most aid that anyone else offers" was the rule.

[Trotsky]

I would think the logic of a decision that says "the Ivy League can't tell its member schools they can't offer athletic scholarships because that's a conspiracy against the good of the student" would hold equally for "the NCAA can't tell D-3 schools they can't offer athletic scholarships because that's a conspiracy against the good of the student."

The question is would it hold for "Cornell can't tell its member colleges they can't offer athletic scholarships because that's a conspiracy against the good of the student."

We may wind up with Dartmouth the only Ivy that can ban athletic scholarships which would be extremely funny given the history of the Academic Index.

[upprdeck]

is this different than requiring grades to get in and using criteria to limit the pool of students excepted,  the ncaa requires a core set of things to go to college.  

or is saying we can only have X number of scholies illegal too?  that limits participation as well.

In another sense the lawsuit kinda defeats itself.. If the Ivies had scholies many of the kids who get accepted and play now would be recruited over for better players in almost all the sports.

[David Harding]

The Sun does a piece on the Brown suit.

[ugarte]

The Sun does a piece on the Brown suit.

Due to the 1945 "Ivy Group Agreement," Ivy League institutions have never offered athletic scholarships. Furthermore, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 contained a provision under Section 568 that validated Ivy League colleges' ability to collectively decide not to give athletic scholarships so long as students are admitted on a need-blind basis — which means that admissions policies are independent of a student's ability to pay for tuition.

However, Section 568 expired on Sept. 30, weakening the legal support for the Ivy League's lack of athletic scholarships. The lawsuit contends that Ivy League schools' agreement to not compete with each other in athlete recruitment through offering scholarships and other educational reimbursements violates the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which outlaws actions that impede interstate commerce and marketplace competition.

interesting.