Antitrust Practices and Market Power Essay

Although college football is the third-most-popular sport, the majority of schools lose revenue on athletics. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, also known as the NCAA, is promoting beneficial ideas to help players in need while increasing academic standards. As stated in the article, “On some LSU teams, Martin said, half of the players are “special admits””, which means multitudes of players do not achieve the same levels of academic success as “normal” students. As long as academic budgets are miniscule compared to athletic budgets, there will always be controversy. This tension increased when “legendary head coach” Joe Paterno, along with Jerry Sandusky, were fired for being involved in a sex-abuse scandal with a minor.

There is a reality to college athletes participating in men's basketball and football. The reality is these athletes are being exploited, and as argued by Stanley Eitzen, they are being exploited much like slaves during the years of the plantation system. It is an idea created by Eitzen that seams overdrawn, but makes significant parallels to that of the plantation system. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) preserves the plantation system, providing the rules that protect the interests of the individual plantation overseers. The plantations are football and men's basketball factories within the universities with big-time programs. The plantation overseers are college coaches who receive hard labor from their workers. The workers on the plantation are owned by the plantation, they produce riches for their masters while receiving a meager amount of return on the profits of the plantation. Being exploited for their physical abilities is not the only injustice hindering these athletes. They are controlled, managed, and dominated by their superiors. They are restricted in their rights to freedom, and in some cases mistreated physically and mentally (Eitzen).

In “Why N.C.A.A Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid” originally published in 2015 in The New Yorker, Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Ekow N. Yankah contends paying College athletes is a “grave mistake” and fails to “recognize the value of sports as a part of education.” In addition, Yankah argues that we should direct elite programs away from exploiting young black athletes but instead encourage intellectual discovery while participating in NCAA sports. Furthermore, the popularity of college athletics can be contributed to the fact that NCAA athletes are students, therefore, more relatable to their professional counterparts. Additionally, Yankah believes paying athletes would diminish the value of academic quality, tradition,

Negative publicity by external aspects (later articulated) provided a constant reminder of the negative reputation that the scandal brought about. Replacement of staff members to fill voids, receipt of grants and tuition sources, and academic support, were victim to short term and long term effects including a lack of overall general expectation for advancement and achievement. Although the NCAA banned Penn State for the postseason for four years and reduced football scholarships from 25 to 15 for a total of 4 years, its initial sanction brought forth negative public perception, further affecting potential students and employees from joining the university (Pickle, 2017 & Murphy,

The antitrust laws are the basis of this national policy. These laws, enforced by both the federal and state governments, require companies to compete in the marketplace. The Sherman Act, the first federal "antitrust law," was enacted in 1890, at a time when there was enormous concern about "trusts" -- combinations of companies that were able to control entire industries. Since then, other laws have been enacted to supplement the Sherman Act, including the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act (1914). With some revisions, these laws still are in effect today. They have the same basic objective: making sure there are strong economic incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.

The NCAA is one of the most profitable organizations in the world due to their monopoly on major college sports. Across the country there are over one thousand colleges and universities in the NCAA separated into 3 divisions, with a total of 89 different sporting events, and a staggering four hundred thousand student athletes in the organization. The NCAA makes money in primarily one way and that’s ad revenue for the commercials played during an event. In the Men’s NCAA Basketball tournament a 30 second add cost over seven hundred thousand dollars to run. The NCAA is a big business with millions of fans, so it is surprising that so few want to hold them accountable for the damages that they cause in their “amateur athletes”. The only difference

Every year the financial cost required for college sports to occur is increasing. From gigantic stadiums being built to hold 80,000 plus spectators, to multi million-dollar TV deals, and the sales of thousands of jerseys leaving campus stores. The revenue generated from college sports is a billon dollar industry, one that rewards coaches, staff members, and universities with ostentatious contracts, and gratuitous bonuses. Case and point, “Nick Saban is paid $5 million dollars more than Alabama 's chancellor” (Has College Football Become A Campus Commodity?). Amidst the profiteering, the NCAA is completely capitalizing on their student athletes’ likeness and achievements. The NCAA standard states college athletes should not receive payment since they are merely amateurs representing their schools. I contest this standard, arguing that athletes must be paid a salary in order to redeem the legitimacy of the NCAA.

Scholarships should not be taken away at the whim, but instead an agreement should be made between the athletic department and the student for him/her to be able to complete higher education. Like many other scholarships, athletic compensation is not guaranteed, but the criteria for renewal are much different. Union officials were shocked that scholarships could be pulled “at the whim of a coach.” Coaches have the authority to pull scholarships from the athletes they believe are underperforming. This can pose a problem for students who rely on these scholarships to get through college. Athletes who do not receive anticipated scholarships tend to be overwhelmed with new bills. Joseph Agnew was cut from his team before senior year, leaving him with $35,000 in tuition and other bills if he wanted to finish his degree. The one-year rule that Agnew experienced allows colleges to cut athletes that underperform in both school

One of the biggest negative events to ever hit the sports world in the past decade came from the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State University. This scandal lead to the firing of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz who all held high level official capacities at the college. What made this scandal so huge was the fact that the Penn State football program as well as head coach Joe Paterno were highly admired and praised. Furthermore, the most shocking aspect of the scandal is how it was kept silent. The scandal kept making itself advent which left the school in a crisis and ruined its reputation. The issue with this scandal is that it involved a wide range of criminal, moral, ethical and sexual misconduct.

A former basketball player sued the NCAA for antitrust law violations. Edward Abandon a former basketball player at UCLA decided to be the main Plaintiff after seeing his self in a video game without his permission.O'bannon argued the NCAA violated the anti trust laws and also his privacy. In 2013 Judge Claudia Wilkins found in favor of O'bannon saying that they violated the Sherman anti trust laws. Two years later in 2015 the ruling was appealed and reversed, the NCAA stated to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product, athletes must not be paid. Last year O'bannon tried to appeal to supreme court but was denied, but didn't walk away emptied handed he settled with 40 million from EA sports. But still the NCAA walks away with no pay for play, this is an unjust law if give ever seen one. I know you've heard the saying "fool me once shame on me but you wont fool me again". Well this is another instance in which the NCAA violated the Anti trust laws and got away in 2014 when Former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the NCAA "violated antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the value of athletic scholarships below the actual cost of attending school and 'far below' what the free market would produce," Basically the NCAA was only providing a partial scholarship to this athlete and having him pay the rest of the tuition out his pocket while they're making 10 times the revenue of his tuition off of his name. Three years later this year one of the most recent actions in the Shawn Alston cases the NCAA settled and payed out 208.7 million dollars for the cost of attendance. The NCAA and conferences only settled this case because the terms are consistent with Division I financial aid rules, which allow athletics based pay up to the full cost of obtaining a college education. Lead attorney in the case Steve Berman said in a

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits the efforts of multiple firms to restrain trade by controlling prices and supply in a market (46 Case W. Res. 1033). In terms of a professional sports league, a

The U.S. government charged that Microsoft had violated antitrust law. Microsoft disagreed. Do you agree with the U.S. government, or with Microsoft? In answering this question, you may wish to address two issues. Was Microsoft a monopoly? Did it use its monopoly to compete unfairly against other companies?

The case against Microsoft was brought buy the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as several state Attorneys General. Microsoft is accused of using and maintaining monopoly power to gain an unfair advantage in the market. The case has been under observation for a long time, but the Justice department is having trouble coming up with substantial evidence against Microsoft. Specifically, the Department must prove:That Microsoft has monopoly power and is using it to gain unfair leverage in the market.And that Microsoft has maintained this monopoly power through "exclusionary" or "predatory" acts(Rule).Some say that Microsoft is only taking advantage of its position in the market and using innovative marketing strategies

What is a monopoly? According to Webster's dictionary, a monopoly is "the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market.” Such power in the hands of a few is harmful to the public and individuals because it minimizes, if not eliminates normal competition in a given market and creates undesirable price controls. This, in turn, undermines individual enterprise and causes markets to crumble. In this paper, we will present several aspects of monopolies, including unfair competition, price control, and horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers.

A lot of people rely on them without even realizing it. Some of the cons of monopolies include price fixing that is associated with a monopoly being able to set whichever price they choose for a product or service simply because the law allows them to do so and there is no viable substitute that can compete with the monopoly company’s product. As has been stated multiple times, monopolies control the market and are able to provide inferior goods if they so choose at the standard rate. Monopolies are able to reduce operating costs while keeping prices fixed or elevated. Competition typically breeds innovation. Companies are searching for the newest and greatest product that will continue to keep them on top of the market. When a monopoly has a grip on a market, the need to be innovative and appealing to their customers can quite often disappear. Until the next generation of technology comes around that allows customers to have an acceptable substitute for the monopoly’s product, customers can be stuck with inferior technology for much longer than is