Could well depend on the state. Non-competes (which is effectively what an anti-transfer clause in a contract is) are largely unenforceable in California. And absent a contract, the courts have already ruled that NCAA anti-transfer restrictions violate antitrust.
Okay, but if contracts come into play there will likely rise an entity to protect the players.
Might help bring some order to the chaos.
I suspect some order will brought at some point. I’m curious to see what it will look like.
You don't need an anti-transfer clause. You just need a two or three year contract, with option to terminate for going pro but not for transfer. There would be a liquidated damages clause that would make transferring undesirable. Not to mention that break-up fees and the like are routinely included in M&A contracts, even in CA.
There's not really one in European leagues.
I don't recall disagreeing with you on any predictions re: Tez. I just didn't think Josh Stein's threat letter was all that strong. I wouldn't have denied that the plaintiffs could win in federal court. I probably said that I thought the NCAA could have won, but not with the stupid student-athlete theory they were pushing.
A bit of a different animal.
You made a parens patriae attack on Josh Stein and said that AG's didn't have a basis to bring antitrust claims against the NCAA for the transfer rules. You also were a fan of the 2018 7th Circuit case upholding the transfer rules. Two months later, a West Virginia judge struck down the transfer rules on antitrust grounds based on seven AG's filing suit.
You allow the buy-out to go away if you go pro but not if you transfer to a competitor? I'd think that would be highly problematic.
There was not a called timeout before the Free Throw. There was a slight delay while the refs stupidly looked at the monitor to confirm Cadeau's three pointer was in fact shot from behind the arc.
keepingitheel.com
