DrKlahn
All American
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 9,512
I’m going to keep banging this drum—with the pay for play model now fully accepted by everyone, what is the justification for the four year limit on eligibility? How is that legal? You are telling the RJ Davises of the world that after 4 years (or 5 or 6 or whatever it is for him), he has to leave his job and accept a less attractive, lower paying job if one is available. Made sense when they weren’t making any money, but now?
Today, the federal government straight up banned noncompete agreements. A company can’t enter into a contract with an employee that bans the employee from competing with the company for x number of years. I’m not sure they can actually do that, and there will be exceptions, and it has nothing to do with college sports, but it’s a useful window into current thinking on worker’s rights (especially the kind of skilled workers that have to deal with noncompetes).
In this environment, how does the 4-year rule survive? There are some schools that would gladly run a pro system with 10-12 year veterans, and UNC is one of them.
Today, the federal government straight up banned noncompete agreements. A company can’t enter into a contract with an employee that bans the employee from competing with the company for x number of years. I’m not sure they can actually do that, and there will be exceptions, and it has nothing to do with college sports, but it’s a useful window into current thinking on worker’s rights (especially the kind of skilled workers that have to deal with noncompetes).
In this environment, how does the 4-year rule survive? There are some schools that would gladly run a pro system with 10-12 year veterans, and UNC is one of them.