Economist, specializing in antitrust & damages & sport economics. Opinions my own. My firm:https://t.co/UyIYpaUol1. Spreading the word about https://t.co/B0TVafpWxL
Jun 8, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
My takeaway from a day of listening to important people in college sports is that they have a childlike concept of how the world works. They all want a pony without having to rent a stable or shovel some horseshit. Adults recognize if you want all the benefits of a professional
Contractual relationship with an athlete, there’s a simple path to that where you can prohibiting tampering, require NIL bonuses to be paid back with a transfer, etc. but with that comes an acceptance you’re treating this as a professional sport. On the other hand, if you want
Jun 9, 2021 • 136 tweets • 17 min read
OK, in 45 minutes, Senate Commerce Committee testimony will begin re; the athletes rights NIL issue. I'll be trying to tweet what's being said and add a bit of commentary as I go, in this thread.
So this is 1/x.
The first thing I want to mention is that I am envious I wasn't invited, as the economist who started the state NIL movement out here in CA. But even with that envy, I also recognize the panel did not need another white male non-athlete.
Mar 31, 2021 • 86 tweets • 12 min read
I am going to try to keep my SCOTUS commentary in this thread and try to be factual (albeit sarcastic, when warranted). Stay tuned.
The link for the audi stream of the arguments is
Someone asked me to jot down what I think would be important if *I* were crafting NIL legislation in Congress, coming from my personal perspective as someone involved in this space for 20+ years, and working with @the_pcleague. My thoughts follow in this thread.
1)Any federal legislation should come from a standpoint that college athletes are adults and full citizens. Enshrining into law some lesser status (e.g., they cannot endorse a CBD brand even though another student could) makes them second class citizens.
Jul 8, 2020 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
Apparently, everyone thinks I should speak to whether Stanford cutting sports makes economic sense or not.
Stanford is not int he category of the schools I normally assess, like AKron, with chronic declining enrollment and a lack of willing customers to fill the slots. (1/x)
If Stanford cuts a sport, it is in a position to fill those classroom slots with willing, paying customers. Conversely if it keeps a sport, it has to say no to those customers. That's not true at Akron.
But... there is a big caveat to that (2/x)
Feb 23, 2019 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
@cannonjw While it is the NBA/NBPA rule, that rule is the result of legal, collective bargaining. CBAs are a legal way of making rules like this and it changes the market price for 10-15 guys a year.
Compare that to what the NCAA does...
@cannonjw ... which is to collude among only one side of the negotiation -- not a CBA at all -- and not explicitly blessed by law. Indeed, the last cap the NCAA chose, which had been in force for 40 years, was found to be illegal. And the current one is on the cusp of similar ruling. ...
Feb 21, 2019 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I've been asked by a bunch of folks whether Duke is allowed to provide Loss of Value insurance for Zion Williamson. The answer is sorta.
So...
An athlete is allowed to borrow and pay for that insurance.
More recently the NCAA allowed schools to use the SAF (Student Assistance Fund) to purchase the insurance for the athlete, but SAF money is ...
Dec 18, 2018 • 20 tweets • 2 min read
Wilkinson says you need the NCAA to Micromanage what is and isn’t educational.
I have to admit I am getting tired and having trouble summarizing Wilkinson’s argument rather than thinking up counter arguments. So I am not doing a good job
Dec 18, 2018 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Beth Wilkinson is essentially arguing conference autonomy is inefficient.
Wilkinson is essentially arguing that if they need to make rules then it will be expensive. And if they don’t then it won’t be amateur.
Dec 18, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Wilkinson argues that fan base might force a school to act differently than the president’s principles. (Side note: antitrust laws protect competition not competitors)
Discussion the costs, Wilkinson says you do consider the costs of voluntary new rules per Tuolomne case.
Dec 18, 2018 • 99 tweets • 11 min read
Judge Wilken states she thinks an antitrust violation occurred. Says it comes down to balancing question.
She’s asking how to balance if there isn’t evidence of the dollar balance. I wish I could testify in answer to that!
Dec 18, 2018 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Judge has entered and we begin
Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler for plaintiffs, Beth Wilkinson, Bart Williams, and Karen Lent for Defendants.
