Search

The article provides a brief history of the baseball antitrust exemption, focusing on previous attempts by litigators, judges, and scholars to limit or constrict the exemption's current near-absolute effect, and details the links between the baseball antitrust exemption and the in NCAA v. Alston.

Following a unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Alston and facing an impending start date for various state laws that would force action on athletes' ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL), the NCAA recently made the decision to simply allow states and member colleges and universities to promulgate NIL restrictions on their own. But while such a delegation helps the NCAA stave off relevant antitrust action against them, placing regulatory authority over college athlete endorsement and sponsorship deals in the hands of government actors like state legislators, governors, and public educational institutions brings constitutional analysis into play in a way that has not previously been seen in sports due to the wholly private natures of sports leagues and the NCAA. Along these lines, this Article applies First Amendment jurisprudence to three recurring NIL restrictions imposed by states and schools: (1) restrictions on athlete deals that conflict with institutional endorsement deals; (2) restrictions on athlete deals with vice industries like gambling and alcohol; and (3) broad restrictions on deals that conflict with undefined "institutional values." To do so, we apply several First Amendment doctrinal frameworks"those concerning commercial speech, student speech, public employee speech, and the overbreadth doctrineâ€"to provide a range of different means by which courts may interpret how the rights of college athletes are affected by NIL policies. In the end, we find that the nature of these restrictions as overbroad prior restraints of free speech creates significant doubt as to the constitutionality of many of these restrictions under the First Amendment. We conclude that such restrictions in no uncertain form "present a 'realistic danger' [that these actors] could significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections," including the advanced protections for political speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on major court storming incidents in college basketball resulting in physical altercations or injuries. It mentions actions have been taken against court storming by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCCA) and its conferences and discuss what the legal standard would be if a fan were to injure someone while rushing the court. It also mentions way to combat court storming and ban by NCAA on court storming during its Championships.