the BigAmateurism monologues

Richard Ford
  • 5.0 (2)
  • Sports
  • Updated Weekly

A series of events over the last 18 months—some unforeseeable—have created a perfect storm that will change college sports forever. The NCAA's bait and switch campaign in Congress on name, image, and likeness, a historic case in the US Supreme Court, COVID, race-based social unrest, the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and the ascent of Amy Coney Barrett,) the Georgia special elections, and more have conspired to make this era perhaps the most consequential in the history of American sports. In this perfect storm, nothing is as it appears to the public. The NCAA and powerful conferences have marshaled some of the most powerful corporate, legal, public relations, media, and political forces in the world to wage war against a small group of elite revenue-producing athletes—overwhelmingly African American—who threaten to disrupt the NCAA cartel in the 15 billion-dollar-a-year college sports industry. The NCAA is one bill in Congress and one Supreme Court decision away from achieving the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. If that happens, the athletes whose talents underwrite the entire industry will have no recourse in federal courts to challenge the NCAA's amateurism-based compensation limits and state legislatures will be powerless to pass laws that protect athletes' basic economic liberties. Join former Duke basketball player, attorney, academician, and athletes' rights advocate Richard Ford as he dissects the NCAA's war against revenue-producing athletes and the institutions, interests, decision-makers, and motives behind it.

  1. 1d ago

    NCAA CONFIDENTIAL: Exploit the Ever-Living Hell Out of Black Revenue-Producing Athletes (Myles Brand’s “Collegiate Model”)

    In his 2006 State of the Association speech, former NCAA President Myles Brand (2003-2009) articulated a theoretical rationalization for the big-time college sports business model. Drawing on his experience as a former university president, Brand debuted the “collegiate model” of intercollegiate athletics to reconcile the increasing tension between the professional products in big-time football and men’s basketball and the values/missions of higher education. Brand’s collegiate model mandates the maximum commercial exploitation of the two revenue-producing sports to fund “participation opportunities” for non-revenue sports and athletes that cannot pay for themselves. Brand argued this “massive redistribution of revenues” was consistent with the business model of higher education writ large. Lost in Brand’s explication of the collegiate model is that it requires the massive diversion of wealth created by black athletes to a range of white—and comparatively well-off—beneficiaries. This episode analyzes Brand’s theory as presented in his 2006 speech, including a stunning “CONFIDENTIAL” cover memo for a draft that provides a window into the NCAA’s true motives in mandating the maximum commercial exploitation of revenue-producing sports and athletes. This conceptualization of the big-time college sports business model was on full display at the September 30, 2021, hearing in the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.

  2. 4d ago

    What the Michigan-Wisconsin Dust-Up Says About Leadership in College Sports

    The altercation between Michigan and Wisconsin after Sunday’s game was a slow-motion train wreck for college basketball and both head coaches. While blame is in the eyes of the beholder, there is no question that the coaches’ behavior on both sides of the handshake line was far less than ideal. This episode looks beyond the obvious issues and analyzes this debacle through the lens of institutional leadership. As with so many problems facing college sports right now, the events of last Sunday beg a crucial question: who the hell is in control of college sports? Absent from the institutional responses were comments from Wisconsin Chancellor Rebecca Blank or Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. Under NCAA, conference, and university principles of institutional control over college sports, the buck stops with university presidents and chancellors. Where were their voices in a circumstance that required a values-based response?

  3. Oct 15

    Dr. Livingstone’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Congressional Testimony

    On September 30th, 2021, Baylor University President Linda Livingstone testified in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. The hearing was titled “A Level Playing Field: College Athletes’ Rights to Their Name, Image, and Likeness.” Dr. Livingstone identified herself to the Subcommittee and the public primarily as a university president and mentioned her role as the Vice-Chair of the Big XII Conference and a member of the NCAA’s Constitutional Committee. But Dr. Livingstone is not a garden variety university president when it comes to college sports. She is also a member of the NCAA Board of Governors and the NCAA Division I Board of Directors. These are the two most powerful and consequential governing boards in the NCAA governance system, making Dr. Livingstone one of the most influential people in college sports. Dr. Livingstone made a case for placing the NCAA on the Iron Throne of college sports regulation, advocating for federal preemption of state NIL laws, anti-trust immunity, and a federal declaration that athletes cannot be employees of their university. In her testimony, Dr. Livingstone did not identify or explain to the Subcommittee the powerful positions she holds in the NCAA governance system. Moreover, Dr. Livingstone’s case for extraordinary federal powers and immunities pitted the interests of revenue-producing athletes against those of nonrevenue-producing athletes. This episode analyzes Dr. Livingstone’s testimony.

  4. Oct 7

    Thoughts on the Big Game, Then Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Program

    In this episode, I offer some closing thoughts on Coach K’s last game in Cameron Indoor Stadium and then return to the byzantine world of the business of college sports.

  5. Oct 2

    The NCAA’s War on Revenue-Producing Men’s Basketball Players

    The entire NCAA bureaucracy, notably its infractions and enforcement processes, is funded by the Division I men’s basketball tournament (March Madness). An elite core of black basketball players is the lifeblood of the tournament. Without these world-class athletes, March Madness would have little commercial value. The NCAA takes billions of dollars generated by these black athletes and diverts it to downstream stakeholder-beneficiaries who are overwhelmingly white and comparatively well-off. This episode analyzes the true value of these high-value men’s basketball players and highlights the unconscionable, regressive diversion of wealth upon which the entire college sports business model rests. These are the very athletes that are now in the crosshairs of the NCAA infractions and enforcement process.

  6. Sep 22

    NCAA v NC State — Respectfully Throwing Down the Gauntlet

    On April 8, 2020, NC State responded to Carol Cartwright’s February 14, 2020, referral letter. NC State’s response—presented by three prominent national law firms and distinguished individual advocates—lays the foundation for a potential legal challenge to the NCAA’s conduct in its infractions and enforcement case. The response points out the egregious procedural irregularities in the NCAA’s handling of the case and the entire Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP). According to NC State, that process bears little resemblance to the recommendations of the Commission on College Basketball from which the IARP originated. As NC State accurately argues, the “new” the NCAA infused into the IARP the very conflicts of interest and NCAA insider influence that the CCB’s recommendations tried to mitigate. NC State also makes a compelling case that it fully cooperated in all aspects of the investigation into the allegations giving rise to the criminal case in the Southern District of New York. NC State cooperated with federal prosecutors, the court, and the NCAA (including its enforcement staff and outside lawyers). NC State’s Senior Associate Athletics Director for Compliance was a star witness for the prosecution in the SDNY criminal case and testified to NC State’s “extensive systems that are in place to detect, deter, and report NCAA violations.” NC State’s portrayal of its cooperation with all aspects of the criminal case flies in the face of Cartwright’s claims in her referral letter that NC State’s conduct in the infractions and enforcement process amounted to “adversarial posturing.” This episode analyzes NC State’s response memo in the context of the changed circumstances in college between April 2020 and the Independent Resolution Panel’s hearing just last month. In those sixteen months, the world of college sports changed forever. The hearing panel’s decision may provide a window into how the NCAA has absorbed these fundamental changes and the extent to which it stands by its conceptualization of amateurism—the primary principle upon which the entire infractions and enforcement apparatus rests.

  7. Sep 20

    NCAA v NC State — The Cartwright Referral Letter and the NCAA’s Violation of Its Own Public Disclosure Rules (Part II)

    NCAA Bylaw 19.01.3 (Public Disclosure) prohibits the public disclosure of infractions and enforcement information. This prohibition applies to both the NCAA and those the subject of an NCAA investigation. In May and June of 2019¬—before the NCAA served Notices of Allegations on NC State and former NC State basketball coach Mark Gottfried on July 9, 2019—NCAA national office executives made public comments to ESPN and CBS Sports about the basketball-related cases. These comments were infused with bias and prejudgment. After the NCAA sent out the NOAs on July 9, Gottfried’s attorney publicly questioned the NCAA’s interpretation of its new Importation Rule, and NC State released investigative materials in response to a public records request. These public disclosures were the subject of two referral criteria: “Actual or Perceived Misconduct by the Involved Parties” and “Breaches of Confidentiality.” Cartwright defended the NCAA’s public comments as appropriate without referencing or citing Bylaw 19.01.3. However, for NC State and Gottfried, the NCAA specifically cited Bylaw 19.01.3 and alleged violations of that bylaw. This episode discusses the remainder of Cartwright’s referral letter and the NCAA’s obsession with its public image under Mark Emmert’s leadership.

  8. Sep 16

    NCAA v NC State — Carol Cartwright's Referral Letter and the NCAA’s “Adversarial Posturing” (Part I)

    On February 14, 2020, Carol Cartwright referred the NC State infractions and enforcement case from the old Committee on Infractions to the new Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP). The IARP was the product of the Commission on College Basketball’s (CCB) recommendation that “high stakes” cases such as NC State should be removed from the old “broken” system and adjudicated by truly independent decision-makers. The referral occurred after the entire case was adjudicated through the old process. The IARP was excluded from the process up to the time of referral. As Cartwright herself repeatedly emphasizes in her referral letter, the NCAA formed the IARP to investigate and adjudicate this very type of case. Cartwright’s justification for the timing of the referral doesn’t pass the blush test. She accused NC State of “adversarial posturing” when it disagreed with the NCAA’s interpretation and application of a newly acquired, powerful adjudicatory tool (“Importation of Facts”) used for the first time in an NCAA infractions case. The circumstances of the referral resulted in NC State losing substantial due process rights. Ironically, Cartwright’s combative tone and prejudgment of the case are textbook examples of “adversarial posturing.”

See All (144)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
2 Ratings

About

A series of events over the last 18 months—some unforeseeable—have created a perfect storm that will change college sports forever. The NCAA's bait and switch campaign in Congress on name, image, and likeness, a historic case in the US Supreme Court, COVID, race-based social unrest, the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and the ascent of Amy Coney Barrett,) the Georgia special elections, and more have conspired to make this era perhaps the most consequential in the history of American sports. In this perfect storm, nothing is as it appears to the public. The NCAA and powerful conferences have marshaled some of the most powerful corporate, legal, public relations, media, and political forces in the world to wage war against a small group of elite revenue-producing athletes—overwhelmingly African American—who threaten to disrupt the NCAA cartel in the 15 billion-dollar-a-year college sports industry. The NCAA is one bill in Congress and one Supreme Court decision away from achieving the Iron Throne of college sports regulation. If that happens, the athletes whose talents underwrite the entire industry will have no recourse in federal courts to challenge the NCAA's amateurism-based compensation limits and state legislatures will be powerless to pass laws that protect athletes' basic economic liberties. Join former Duke basketball player, attorney, academician, and athletes' rights advocate Richard Ford as he dissects the NCAA's war against revenue-producing athletes and the institutions, interests, decision-makers, and motives behind it.

Information