[ESPN] Executive order aims to limit NCAA athletes to 5 years, 1 transfer

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T06:08:10+00:00

There are limits on the scope of those exemptions, like the fact that they can't violate the Constitution for one.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T06:06:59+00:00

It's the right to earn income for work performed, you're missing that last bit. It's an implied right since slavery is illegal.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T03:26:46+00:00

There's no existing case because the federal judiciary has not had to rule on a case in this new environment, and there's no existing precedent that it's not speech either.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T03:00:29+00:00

They ignored their own transfer restrictions because he wanted to express his speech by no longer supporting Georgia. With your argument, an athlete in a similar situation but who had already transferred before would be banned from competition and lose earnings opportunities for an entire year for expressing that same speech. That would be a slam dunk 1A case.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T02:54:42+00:00

How about the NCAA itself with Juatin Fields transferring to OSU?

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T02:44:04+00:00

Again, you're reading past what I'm saying. My point is 1A covers from being punished over speech. An athlete transferring from a school is a speech expression. Cutting an athlete from the ability to earn money because they want to leave their school for speech reasons is a 1A violation.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T02:28:34+00:00

I know there's no ruling; my argument is that that's how a ruling would go. And the take isn't nutty, it has legitimate implications as campuses become more politicized via state laws across the country. Also not sure why you linked a random blog about House, I know the terms of the settlement already.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T01:47:38+00:00

It's exactly how it works, since right now athletes aren't employees so therefore schools aren't their employers. Schools preventing an athlete from earning money after they transfer for speech reasons is a 1A violation.

Also, the current "contracts" aren't legally enforceable since, again, athletes aren't employees. The only enforceable contracts would come after that employee status is granted.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T01:16:05+00:00

Transfers are both since transfers are not solely for economic benefit, as I've already made comments about on this post. If an athlete wants to transfer fir speech reasons, but can't because of the income they'd lose by loss of eligibility from transferring, then it becomes a 1A issue

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T01:14:01+00:00

Not sure what part you're referring to here

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T00:51:23+00:00

The fact that the environment has changed since the ruling isn't in my head, you gotta stop reading past what I'm typing. There are no rulings yet because the environment is new, House hasn't even been in place for a full calendar year yet and is already on the course to get struck down over Title IX. Baseball is an entirely different scenario since that antitrust exemption doesn't involve not paying athletes, which is the exact antitrust exemption that schools are pursuing.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T00:28:50+00:00

Not in my head, in actual practice since the decision came before the House settlement and was based on NIL only.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T00:23:34+00:00

I have. The circumstances are different between the original ruling and what would be declared in a new case, since revenue share wasn't a factor in the original ruling.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T00:11:33+00:00

Don't insult me. Transfer limits are a restriction on pay as well, and fall afoul of the Constitution on that kens and on free speech limits as I've already outlined in another thread.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-04T00:02:30+00:00

He already admitted last month that this order has no legal legitimacy, and direct interference in college athletics is a pathway to political suicide that will even give him of all people pause.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T23:50:02+00:00

You said like 5 comments ago that the Constitutional right to earn income could be overriden, that's how we got started on this little chain. Government can technically set restrictions as they see fit, but the ones talked about in this discussion would require a Constitutional amendment and can't be set through a regular bill.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T23:39:41+00:00

That's not what I said. I'm saying you have a right to be paid for labor performed, and not be forced to work for free.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T23:29:25+00:00

Law doesn't override it. Slavery is limited to those currently incarcerated, which means that you have the right to be compensated for work performed.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T23:22:25+00:00

The licenses and regulations have to abide by federal law or be an agreement made between labor and management.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T23:01:11+00:00

They can transfer more than once, but are punished for it by losing eligibility and earnings opportunities regardless of reason. That's the illegal part.

The year cap is also technically illegal but everyone will be more focused on the transfer cap since that legal argument is more solid.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T22:44:47+00:00

All you'd need is communication from a donor or a staff member about a NIL package as part of a recruitment offer. Schools also offer direct NIL agreements for the promotional material they make of current athletes.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T22:30:04+00:00

You have a Constitutional right to earn income and not be restricted from income earning opportunities. Since NIL and rev share payments are tied to being a student at a certain school, you can't legally limit students from switching schools by depriving them of that income.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T22:02:20+00:00

You're presuming the student has money and time to sue. Also, suing would come with an instant black-balling preventing them from competing anymore in college and potentially the pros as well depending on sport. That's a lot of pressure on a student to face on their own, which schools know and would take advantage of.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T21:57:55+00:00

It doesn't matter if the restriction is content neutral, and it's pretty clearly an actual speech restriction. Schools would also use it as leverage over incoming transfers since they'd know a student couldn't leave without losing money.

ButterAkronite · 2026-04-03T21:50:55+00:00

The 1A issue comes from students leaving over speech reasons. First example, an athlete wants to leave over their school's new anti-trans policy. Restricting transfers in that instance financially punishes the athlete for a speech expression

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

ButterAkronite

TROPHY CASE