NCAA v. Alston and Listener Questions!

This week on The Outlaw Lawyer, we're going to do a deep dive on the recent Supreme Court decision handed down on the NCAA and its impact on the future of collegiate athletics. We'll also be looking at the history of some legal challenges to the NCAA and we'll also take the time to answer a listener question.

Next. Now, if you take in facts and you think about them and you don't jump to an instant opinion, you're the outlaw. And now, Outlaw Lawyer with Josh Whitaker. Welcome to this week's episode of The Outlaw Lawyer. As always, I'm Josh Whitaker. I'm one of your hosts. Our other host is Joe Hamer. Welcome, Joe. Thanks for having me, Josh. I know you're going to ask me. I feel fantastic today. It's great to be here.

We'll get that out of the way early. We are the partners over at Whitaker and Hamer, a law firm with offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro and Fuquay-Varina serving Wake, Johnston, Harnett, Wayne and surrounding counties. Our law firm has many attorneys, many offices and many staff persons to serve you. If you have a question for the law firm or the show, you can give us a call at 1-800-659-1189.

That's our phone number, 1-800-659-1186. And so you can use that to, again, get a hold of the lawyers at Whitaker and Hamer or the show, The Outlaw Lawyer. If you have a question or comment for us, we always love to hear from folks. We like listener questions. We try to address some of those every show. And then we also have an email address, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com.

Remember, you got to put the the in there, theoutlawlawyer.com. That's also our website. So all of our episodes, past and present.

are there. And you can listen to those or download our show a number of other ways off that website. So reach out to us, shoot us an email, any questions you have. Again, we just love to hear from you.

Uh, Joe, we always, we always harp on this and we'll do it again. You know, your attorney's experience, your fiduciary's experience, your professional's experience matters. So when you're looking for an attorney, a CPA, any of those folks, experience matters. Our law firm's experience, I think stands toe to toe with about any law, I put us toe to toe with any law firm. This was like a WrestleMania type event where all the competitors were attorneys. I think we'd be in the main event.

We would be in the main event. Yeah, you know, experience matters. When you're looking for a professional or a fiduciary, someone to help you in a professional capacity, you know, we always recommend, you know, don't, don't, don't go bargain hunting, looking for the cheapest person around to help you with that. Um, and who you choose is very important and that experience really matters. And our firm is always going to try to balance a reasonable cost with the wealth of experience that we bring you against several attorneys, several offices serving the surrounding area, uh, for our listeners.

And, and like Josh said, many staff persons that we have. You know, Joe, we were, we were searching title for someone the other day, we had a title search that came in the office and we went back and for this title search, we were back in the 1950s. And at that time, a great decade, it was, it was, we were in the 1950s and, uh, a couple was getting separated, or I guess they had already been separated. They had gotten remarried. And so they were trading and they would cross, we call it cross-deeding. They were deeding each other, some interest they may have had in a property. And, uh, the deeds were recorded out of order and nothing, nobody had to search title on this property, it was family property. So until 2021, that mistake was still there.

It's amazing. It's amazing how we, how we uncover these fossils of the mistakes in the past. And there was a very expensive corrective measures that had to be taken for something that was done wrong in the 1950s. Those people in the 1950s were probably bargain searching for their attorney and, uh, and not valuing experience. Experience matters. So like we talk about on the show, it's a balancing of equities.

You know, no one wants to spend a fortune on their attorney. Um, and we think at the firm, we do a good job balancing, uh, price fees versus, uh, experience. That's always important to us. And we, we like to talk about that cause I, uh, it's important.

The balance of price fees, experience, and then just great people, Josh, we've got some fantastic individuals that work with us if I do say so myself. Um, all right, Joe. So, uh, today, um, I think, you know, I think it's also important when you talk about experience, you talk about being local and being in the communities, uh, where you live, you practice in the communities where you live. You know, that's very important. I think it's very important, uh, to, to, to look at that local piece and, and, you know, Josh, you actually grew up in the very community that you practice in. Is that correct?

That is correct. I am from, uh, I am from Raleigh and kind of grew up on that side of Raleigh. That's kind of in between Garner and Feakway. So I spent a lot of time in Garner and Feakway, spent a lot of time in Clayton, which I know is your neck of the woods, Joe. Clayton is my neck of the woods, Josh. And I grew up in Clayton, born and raised, live in Clayton now. There was a time when I knew virtually every person in Clayton and, uh, Clayton, you know, has changed a lot since then has grown really exponentially in a short period of time. But yeah, you know, it's, it's, I love serving the community that I live in and especially being able to serve the legal needs of the community that also I grew up in, that my family grew up in.

I've got generations of Claytonian people. Is that the official? It is now. I didn't know if that was Clayton Knight, maybe.

I don't know how that goes. No, I think it is. I think it is important. I think it says a lot about you, Joe. It says a lot about the firm. You know, we are a, we consider, we consider ourselves and we're in Raleigh, but we consider ourselves a small town firm at heart. But we have the size, we have attorneys, we have the staff, we have the experience of a, I don't know, I would say a regional law firm. So I've always thought of us as a, a little big firm.

Yeah. You know, it's, it's important to have that balance. And I, and like you said, I think we balance the local presence, you know, as far as the personalized attention, the attention to detail, the involvement in the community, the, the relatability of our attorneys, the knowing who you're dealing with. We balance that well with some of the benefits you get from these larger law firms, where you've got the several office locations, you've got the large support staff.

And I think it's the best of both worlds, Josh. I really do. Again, if we can ever be of help to you, uh, 1-800-659-1186, that phone line is set up to, to take a message. So you won't get a live person if you call that number, leave us a detailed message, give us some good contact information. I know someone left a message the other day, uh, no phone number, no email address. And I'd really like to talk to that person, but, uh, we need the good contact information. 1-800-659-1186. Or you guys can email us at questions.

That's plural questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. And if you want to know more about the firm or you want to know more about me and Joe, you can go to theoutlawlawyer.com and there's information there. If you want to know more about the two of us, I know a fact about you, Josh, uh, talking about the local nature of the both of us, really. A lot of our listeners know we've talked about it before on the show, and that's our history as player and coach and the recreational basketball scene, uh, for young boys in North Carolina. That's right.

That's right. We, uh, I coached you guys when you were, I don't know, eight, nine years old up until you were probably getting ready to go to college. And I don't have this officially, but, uh, I'm pretty sure Josh won the award for greatest eight to nine year old regular basketball coach in the history of the world. We, uh, you know, my wife was cleaning up some stuff and she came across some, some pictures of you guys when you really, you were young playing basketball.

So we'll have to get those up on the website to confirm so people know we're not lying. If you'd like to see my eight to nine year old basketball pictures, 1-800-659-1186. All right, Joe, what are we going, what are we going to focus on today? So today, uh, you know, Josh, we're both, uh, pretty big sports fans. We like to talk about sports and big fans of collegiate athletics.

And just very recently, the Supreme court has actually handed down a decision that's going to have some pretty wide reaching ramifications on collegiate athletics and amateurism in general. So we'll talk a little bit about that. We'll, uh, answer again, our favorite thing in the world. We'll answer some listener questions.

Um, call us with your questions. We love to hear and we love to answer them and we love to talk to you guys. But yeah, so we've got a few things to talk about and we're really going to dive heavy into the NCAA and, and how the law has most recently intersected with college sports.

One of our favorite things. All right, Joe, let's take a quick break coming up on the outlaw lawyer. We're going to discuss the history of amateur athletics and the NCAA and how the law has historically looked at the NCAA in college athletes. All right, we're back at the outlaw lawyer, Joe and I here with you, uh, this case that we're going to talk about this, uh, the Supreme court case that just came down. Uh, this was a big one.

This is when a lot of people were waiting for. Um, but today we're going to talk about the law and how it affects the NC double a. So Joe and I are both big college fans. Joe is unfortunately a Duke fan. I am for better or worse, NC state fan.

Um, so we, uh, college athletics, that's bigger to me than the pros. You know, you grew up down here. That's what you had.

That's what you had. And that, I mean, it was really King, um, around these parts. You know, I know I go into public school back in my day, way back, not even that long ago. Um, but it college athletics were, were a huge thing. The ACC tournament is a huge thing.

I vividly remember, you know, class stop and teachers rolling TVs in so everyone can watch the ACC tournament. Um, and it's always just been a huge part of life. I mean, a lot of, a lot of people are defined by their collegiate Alliance in a lot of ways.

And the teams they pull for, it's just, we're on tobacco road. It's a big, big thing here. I, uh, you know, before, before we talk about any case, you know, uh, the Supreme court's always, you kind of need to know what's happened before. You need to know the history. You need to know how we got to this point before a new case or a new decision, uh, makes sense.

So Joe, let's put this in perspective. Where, what's the, what's the history of the law and how it's affected the NCAA? Josh, you said it well, history really matters. And history really matters when we're looking at the way that the law has looked at the NCAA and kind of helped shape the current tradition of the NCAA. And it's important to look at that history when you're kind of tracking the gradual reformation of college sports and amateurism.

So we'll do a brief rundown to kind of let you guys know how we got to where we are today before we dive into the most recent ruling. So the arguments that are before the Supreme court today, which we'll get into, they were actually shaped way back in 1984, 37 years ago with the case of NCAA versus board of Regents. So in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens actually set the stage and wrote the majority opinion, which stated the NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports. And that's really the way that things have been for most of our lifetimes, that amateurism piece has been important. So what does that really mean today? So Seth Waxman is actually the lawyer for the NCAA in the current case.

And he framed this historical foundation we're talking about with his statement that said that for more than a hundred years, the distinct character of college sports has been that it is played by students who are amateur, which is essentially to say that they're not paid to play. And you're right. That's the way it's been for a long time. And as we say a lot on this show, things are different now. Social media has changed the way that everybody communicates and the way coaches and a lot of the rules that NCAA has in place to, I guess, in their thoughts, preserve amateurism or maybe outdated and maybe don't make a whole lot of sense in today's world.

Yeah. And it's funny because you think of the way that viewpoints change. And I remember growing up and it was a different landscape for college. Again, there's several college sports that we're going to focus more on the bigger college sports, at least in this area, as far as college football, college basketball, and kind of focus our talk around there. There are several, several college sports. But the shifts in perspectives and the shifts in the way that the games are played, the makeup of teams, like growing up, you didn't have the one and done rule. You didn't have individuals that were either completely opting out of college, going directly to the NBA, or as it is now, spending the one year in college before they jump ship to the NBA in the case of college basketball. You would see, you know, people come into school, amateur college athletes, they'd stick around for four years, you'd get to see that growth.

And it's just a completely different landscape. I'm trying to remember the first. So I don't know if I've ever publicly admitted this. But in high school, I was a Carolina fan.

I don't tell a lot of people this, and I'm very ashamed of it now. But when I was growing up, I got taller, quicker, had to play center a lot. And I like to, you know, I liked a lot of the centers that Carolina had coming through. So I didn't officially become a state fan until I went to state. So that's, that's hard. That's hard for me to talk about.

I don't, I just, Josh. Yeah, but I have, but, uh, Josh, but I'm trying to remember the first player that I remember not staying for four years because they could go pro. It's a very, it's a recent phenomenon, you know, and I'm not saying that I don't have the history book in front of me. I can't say that it never happened, but it wasn't something that was prevalent. And you would see players that stuck around for a substantially longer period of time than you see players now. It just seemed like there was a different mindset in general surrounding sports and, you know, the players of allegiance, I don't want to say allegiance, but the player, you know, the way that that players really embodied that university and represented that university. And it still happens today, but it's just a different era now, man.

It's, it's completely different. You've got kids with the, the advent of social media and we'll talk more about social media, but you got a lot of kids who were coming out of high school and have millions of followers coming out of high school and have already built their own individual brand. And, um, just have, you know, notoriety and fame on a level that was previously unheard of. You didn't hear about recruits back in the day like you do now. I know, uh, at state, if you follow state recruiting, I know with two of the past three years, we've had a, uh, four or five star kid come out, commit, and then end up going, going pro, going to the G league, never, never stepping foot on campus. You know, going from definitely going to play a year or two a college ball to I'm gone, going pro, and you can't blame the kids.

No, no, you can't blame the kids. And, and part of the, the issue that we're discussing here and, you know, the discussion of amateurism is the NCAA has really grown into a billion dollar industry. And you're talking about, there are several individuals who are just becoming filthy rich, uh, from the, the sports that are being played, the TV revenue, all of the revenue that is generated and all of this revenue is generated based on the play of the individual players who, uh, again, um, are not entitled to the lion's share of this revenue that goes to the individuals around them, which again, we'll talk about in more detail as well. Yeah. That model again, it just, it just, it, it, it made perfect sense to me back in the, back in the eighties. And then just as we get further away, um, you know, cause the, the amateurs are getting, they're getting a college education, which has a value. And that was always the argument, you know, and it, and it did, it made perfect sense.

You know, you, I can vividly remember hearing it. It was always, you know, these, these individuals are getting a college education that is sufficient compensation. But again, I think those arguments were made at a time. And I mean, college basketball, college football has always been big business, but I mean, we're talking a billion dollar business now. Um, and you know, it, it, it becomes as it has in the most recent case, it literally becomes an antitrust issue is what we're looking at here. Um, so the prevailing principle for the NCAA, uh, like we've discussed has long been that amateurism is the defining factor of college sports and that not compensating these student athletes is a necessity to protect the sanctity of the sport. But, uh, you know, that definition of amateurism has really shifted and evolved over time. So there was a time way back in the day when the NCAA didn't even allow full athletic grants and scholarships. So you couldn't even get a full scholarship as kids do today, um, which is of course, nowadays kids can get those full scholarships. And there was even a time in the late seventies where the NCAA actually expanded that definition and defined an amateur to be a student, uh, that played a amateur college sport, but also allow them to be a paid professional athlete and another sport. The point being, it's never really been a static definition. Uh, and, and that's, what's so it makes the NCAA position so difficult here is that you can't really say that it's, it's, you've always defined amateurism and a college athlete in one way when it's kind of been a shifting and evolving type of concept over time. The, uh, when are they supposed to come back in the NCAA football game is supposed to come back this year.

I'm not crazy, right? I read that. Uh, so, and that, that gets into, uh, that's kind of a separate subset, but it's, it's related. Uh, you know, you're talking about there when you ever, if you're a video game and college video game fan, um, you know that you've long suffered a drought in college related video games because it's a likeness issue. So you've, if you ever played college video games, you can never have the actual players.

You had to download bootleg teams, um, because you can't, again, these players can't profit off of their likeness and the NCAA can't profit off of their likeness. So that is a coming down the pipeline type of thing. So I think we could potentially see the resurgence of college basketball and football games, and then you can rejoice. You can stop playing the 2012 NCAA football on your PlayStation.

I didn't want to interrupt you. I know we're talking about how the, how the NCAA has changed into this billion dollar, but the whole time we've been doing this, I've just been thinking about, I know I read that we're getting another football game this year. So I hope that is the case.

God willing we will do that. So, but yeah, so again, you know, long and what the NCAA's argument has always been is, is just protecting that amateur status. And that's been the argument for not paying and compensating players. And there's several reasons why they've made this argument. You know, one of the main reasons being to keep the playing field level, you know, you don't want, if it becomes a bidding war for players, then you're going to ruin any sense of parody is what the argument is. But in reality, is it really a level playing field now for everyone?

Uh, there's, there's, there's ancillary ways and, and there's other ways that schools can spend money to kind of. Unlevel that playing field. So it's, it's kind of a tough argument to advance. Um, but again, that's kind of the history of how we got here. The court's always given a good bit of deference to the NCAA on these matters, and it's never really taken up the issue in the way that it has most recently. Um, so it, you know, again, as we move into the present, we're going to see some things being defined and some changes that could really, really have some long, far lasting implications for the structure of the NCAA moving forward.

All right, Jay, let's take a break. Uh, when we come back, we'll, uh, we'll jump headlong into this case. Coming up, we talked the recent Supreme court ruling in NCAA v. Alston. We will talk about the facts of the case and dig into yet another unanimous ruling by the Supreme court that will have big implications for college sports moving forward. So we've talked about the changing landscape of college athletics. Uh, we've talked about how things have kind of progressed from the seventies to the, to now, how, uh, how the court has kind of looked at the, the few cases they they've been given up until this point. Um, and so now we are ready to talk about NCAA versus Alston. Uh, Joe, uh, what are, what are the facts here?

Josh, you know, I love facts and I love giving you the factual rundown. So in NCAA v. Alston, in this case, we've got several, several division one football and basketball players who have filed a suit against the NCAA arguing that its restrictions on non-cash educational related benefits violates antitrust laws under the Sherman act. Uh, the district court in reviewing this case actually found for the athletes and held that the NCAA must allow for certain types of academic benefits, such as computers, science equipment, musical instruments, and other tangible items that aren't included in the cost of attendance, but nonetheless are related to the pursuit of academic studies. Um, however, the district court held that the NCAA may still limit cash or cash equivalent awards for academic purposes. The U S court of appeals for the ninth circuit actually affirmed the district court's decision, recognizing that the NCAA's interest in quote, preserving amateurism, uh, is important, but they concluded nevertheless, it is a violation of established antitrust laws. Joseph, I don't know that I've ever said amateurism as much as I've said it, uh, in this show, I think maybe in my life, I've said it twice until today. We're going to get that.

We're going to get your amateurism count up through the roof today, brother. All right. So basically this is, this is an antitrust case about the legality of colleges, uh, buying through the NCAA agreeing to limit compensate compensation, uh, for student athletes.

That's right. So federal antitrust law prohibits competing businesses from unreasonably restraining how they compete. And the basic rationale with that is that when competitors work together, some element of the economy might experience higher prices, uh, fewer choices and less innovation as a result of everybody just basically harmoniously working together and agreeing upon these things. Um, the Austin case argues that by capping grants and aid to tuition and fees and room and board and other expenses up to the value of the full cost of attendance, that again, the NCAA has violated that federal antitrust law. So while big schools can offer millions of dollars and fringe benefits to bring in the top coaches, schools are capped on what can be offered to athletes. And I would, you know, coaches command large salaries. Large, large, we should have gone into coaching. Oh, you did go into coaching. We talked about one of the greatest rec coaches of all time. You missed your call.

I was, uh, I was compensated very poorly for that. Josh, you did it for all of our basketball playing listeners out there. Uh, coach Whitaker, number one technique to get his team tuned up and ready. Play a game of 21. You gotta get, uh, you gotta get the energy out, man. Play 17 games of 21 and you will win a championship every year.

You gotta loosen up. So yeah, so coaches command high, high salaries, and it's not just coaching. It's the schools. There are certain schools who have larger budgets than other schools.

Duke University has a larger athletic budget and more money available to it than my beloved alma mater, Barton College, may have. And with that money, although they can't necessarily legally pay athletes, there are several ancillary and fringe benefit types of things that are going to make one school more attractive than another school. But none of these things necessarily are a direct financial compensation or benefit to those student athletes. So at the end of the day, the court, what's at issue in Austin isn't, isn't something earth shattering or groundbreaking that will drastically shift the nature of college sports. Um, Austin is asking the NCAA to allow reimbursements to athletes for expenses pertaining to computer science equipment, musical instruments, and other tangible academic related items not included in the cost of attendance calculation.

Yeah. So, you know, Austin's argument is that the, these fringe benefits basically allow for all of this money, tons of money, to be funneled to the people around the recruits and the athletes. And, um, the actual recruits and athletes who are the ones who are on the court and on the field and playing the sports, they are actually being shorted on this gigantic financial benefit. And at the end of the day, again, these are the individuals who are driving the product that is being watched, which is generating the billions for the NCAA and these other individuals. And again, the NCAA has countered this argument by referring to the ruling that we talked about originally, that NCAA versus Board of Regents, and basically stating that the courts should view the NCAA's rules with great deference under antitrust law. And they argue that those, those caps we talked about on the grant and aid, they actually enhance elements of the market and allow for there to be a distinction between college sports and pro sports. And they actually make the argument that if you take that amateur element out of the game, that fans will lose interest in the college game and folks won't want to watch college basketball anymore or football anymore. Well, I mean, I think, you know, just, uh, I get not a legal perspective, but I think people are losing interest in college sports just because of the way it is now, because there are, uh, the elite athletes don't have to go. Usually, you know, usually it used to be where you, you would want to go to college to kind of showcase your, your talent.

And now there, there are other options out there. So college basketball is not always getting the most elite. And I think that's a, we could do a whole entire radio episode on the, the reasons for potential decline in interest.

But I mean, part of it, you hit the, you hit the nail on the head. Part of it is that, um, part of it is the, the substantial just, you know, turnover in teams. You got people who come for a year, they're gone for a year. People can't, and this isn't with every school, but with a lot of schools, you can't get invested in a team because the makeup of it changes. You've had recent changes to the transfer portal that allow athletes to, you know, leave the school and start playing immediately. So you just, it's a different world. It's a different game.

Um, and, and even with some declining popularity, still wildly profitable. Oh yeah, absolutely. The, you know, I think a couple of things are important here too. Um, you know, I think a lot of people, a lot of people who watch the court, uh, you know, there was a lot of, again, we're not a, we're not a political show. We don't get involved in politics, but just as an observer of the Supreme court, we've got some Trump appointees who are on their first, uh, session.

And we're getting our first chance to take a look at them. And I, you know, uh, I think there were some folks who were really worried that there would be a lot of five, four, uh, decisions. And this is, this is unanimous ruling. That's important. It's important for the case and what it means for the NCAA going down the line. But I think there's also important. There's been a lot of non and oh, I know unanimous rulings this session, but a lot of slam dunks, man.

Yeah. And you know, the, the use of basketball analysis, the Supreme court gets to pick the cases that, that they hear, but it really looks like this court, you know, is, is, is working together and really trying to get down, uh, to the issues at hand. And I think a lot of these Supreme court cases have been very interesting just because there's so much, uh, consensus. There's so much agreement and there certainly was here. There was no, uh, it was, it was unanimous and, and justice Cavanaugh wrote the opinion for the majority, which I guess it was everybody, right? The majority was not.

Yeah. I think he actually wrote the concurrence. Um, but, but I think his, he's been, he's been thrown out there in the news because it was such a strong scathing rebuke of the NCAA. Um, so, and again, you know, I just want to go back and touch on, you touched on the fact that it was a fairly narrow, you know, it's a fairly narrow ruling in this case, the, the at issue is not the largest, most wide reaching thing. Um, but the overall ruling, I think is of just great importance and kind of signals a broader remedy that could have just a completely transformative impact in the future on the way that college sports are played and how that NCAA functions. But, uh, yeah, you know, justice Cavanaugh in this case really seems to be a champion of student athletes and seems to support player pay if nothing else.

The, uh, yeah, I think people, I think people were surprised. Uh, but I think this has to be, if you're the NCAA, you don't want anything else going before the Supreme court. I think the Supreme court has kind of given you, even though this is a narrowly tailored, uh, ruling, uh, it has far reaching effects in that if I was the NCAA, I would see this as a, if something else gets before the Supreme court, it's probably not going to go our way. If you're the NCAA, you're, it's a bad day for you. It's a, I mean, again, maybe today isn't the end, but I mean, this is the end is, is coming. Yeah, we're going to, we're going to, we're definitely, well, unless something happens in our age, I was going to say something's going to happen in our lifetime, but I'm giving myself some years there. Yeah. Yeah.

What you never want to do. So we talked about Cavanaugh and he, he had a really scathing opinion and in his opinion, he referenced how the NCAA's attorney Seth Waxman made the argument that the NCAA had a right to define its business model because fans prefer watching unpaid players. And Cavanaugh actually kind of took apart that argument and he wrote that all of the rest, all of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cook cooks wages on the theory that customers prefer to eat food from low paid cooks.

Hospitals can't agree to cap nurses income in order to create a purer form of helping the sick and price fixing labor is price fixing labor. And he concluded by saying the NCAA is not above the law. That's not good if you're the NCAA.

That's not even the worst of what he said. I mean, he really laid the Hamer down on them and was really brutal in the way that he picked them apart. But this, this argument, I mean, arguably this argument of amateurism is, is outdated and these aren't amateurs. These are, these are people who are providing valuable, valuable labor while they happen to be students. And you see, you know, in doing the research for this, you come upon stories of several student athletes who essentially are having to forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars they could be making because they, again, aren't allowed to profit off of their likeness. And you get into those sticky issues of amateurism.

And I mean, it's, it just, it starts looking inequitable. All right, Joe, I think that's a good time to take a break and we will be back shortly. Coming up, we wrap up our discussion of NCAA v. Austin by looking at where the NCAA goes from here and what the future of college athletics looks like.

All right, we're back. Joe and I are going to continue our discussion on this NCAA Supreme Court case that came down that's going to change a lot one way or the other. But just as a reminder here at the Outlaw Lawyer, we want to hear from you, the listener, we want to figure out what you would like us to talk about just to two attorneys who like to talk about the law. We'd like to focus that on what our listeners may be thinking or may be interested in.

So if you have a suggestion for a show, if you have a comment or a question, or we've done something incorrect and you want to correct us, we'll be glad to issue that correction if we've gotten something wrong. But you can reach us at 1-800-659-1186. That's 1-800-659-1186.

That line is a message, so it's monitored, but you'll need to leave a message for us with good contact information and your question or your concern. And that'll put you in touch with us here at the Outlaw Lawyer. And it'll also put you in touch with our law firms at Whitaker and Hamer. Joe and I, when we're not doing the radio show, we're practicing attorneys.

Whitaker and Hamer is a law firm with offices in Raleigh, Garner Clayton, Goldsboro, and Fuquay-Varina. We're a general practice law firm, so we have attorneys that practice in a bunch of different areas. So if you have a legal problem, more than likely, we would be able to consult with you and help you on that problem. And if it's something we don't handle and you call us, we'll certainly get you to someone who may be able to help you. But that number again, it's 1-800-659-1186. And we have an email address as well.

So questions, that's plural. Questions at, and our domain name, our website, theoutlawlawyer.com. So not outlawlawyer.com, it's theoutlawlawyer.com. And if you go there, there's some information on me and Joe, the law firm. All of our episodes are there. And so you can listen to this episode again, or you can listen to any of our previous episodes. But again, we'd love to hear from you.

In this segment, we're going to talk about the NCAA case. We'll also be getting to another listener question. So we do take those questions very seriously, and we like to delve into those. We love to delve into them. We love to hear from each and every one of you. And check out that website. All of our greatest hits at your disposal for free, free content.

Some of our greatest radio shows right there available for you. Reach out to us, ask us your questions. Again, we're not here to offer legal advice to anyone.

We're here just to generally discuss the law because it interests us. But we'd love to help you out. So feel free. Give us a call, shoot us an email, and just get in touch with us. Let's interact.

All right. So we've been talking about, we've been talking about NCAA v. Alston, which is a case that has just recently been argued in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has just issued its ruling, and it's another 9-0 unanimous ruling. And Justice Kavanaugh really just dismantled the NCAA. If the NCAA was my client in this case and I got this ruling, I would be afraid to talk to them. To use a basketball analogy, which will be appropriate, Justice Kavanaugh has just dunked all over the NCAA and then hung on the rim and done the thing where you kind of wrap your legs around.

I'm sure you know of this. You did a lot of dunking of basketballs in your day, but essentially embarrassed the NCAA. So there's been a number of moments in the past few decades as we've kind of talked about the development and the history of the NCAA where it seemed like the NCAA's days may be numbered. But there's really never been anything like this, which is, again, a 9-0 unanimous Supreme Court ruling with an opinion that basically argues that the entire model and basis for the NCAA will not withstand legal scrutiny. So today may not be the day that the NCAA's model becomes illegal, but I think it's becoming more and more clear that the organization will soon have to basically forfeit any facade of legitimacy moving forward. Yeah, I don't know where they go from here. I mean, there's money to be made and the people making that money, they're going to want to continue to do that as long as they can.

But at some point, you've got to shift your model, and I don't know if they allow a certain amount of compensation per player, per school, and it's capped. I don't know what level you go on, because it looks like if this comes before the Supreme Court with the right facts, there's going to be no caps, there's going to be no anything. Well, yeah, and it's interesting, because I think everybody recognizes it's not an open and shut type of issue.

I mean, it is in a sense. The equitable, the just thing is to allow compensation, but at the same time, there are certain concerns that have to be addressed as well. And so, you know, with this decision, we talked about it, not a whole lot is changing today.

It's just the tenor of the opinion. And it's been made very clear that the way that the court looks at these things, the potential for the future change to be dramatic is there and is very real and seems to just be a near certainty at this point. Yeah, you would think the NCAA will have to do something.

I can't imagine they get this ruling and they sit there and they think they're going to be okay for any extended period of time. I think what they should do is bring back college football and basketball video games. I think that should be one of their primary priorities. But yeah, so, you know, toward the end of his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh actually suggests that the NCAA should resolve its illegal model through a kind of collective bargaining process with college athletes. So he's actually kind of given them some advice on how to proceed forward. And he's saying, you need to come together with these college athletes.

You need to all get together and you need to come to some kind of collective agreement on what's fair and how to kind of proceed. And he basically says that if you don't do this, that the issues that we have with amateurism, there's that word again, the issues we have with amateurism may have to be fixed by either legislation or some future Supreme Court lawsuit. He's basically given the NCAA a warning. He's saying that there's issues with this model.

They need to be fixed. And if you don't do it, NCAA, we're going to do it for you. He's almost daring them, you know, and inviting people to bring more cases. I mean, I think he wants to continue to dunk on this, on the NCAA in this manner. I think the last NCAA basketball game I had that I still play is a 2003 game. Yeah, it's hard to say, man.

I feel like the quality may have, there was a drop in quality before this series expired. But man, NCAA, they lose out on some money to the athletes. Let's bring the games back and let's recoup it that way. That's my professional advice to the NCAA. Not an NCAA video game, but my Facebook algorithm, the advertisers have really figured out how to advertise directly. It's kind of scary how I want to buy everything that Facebook advertises to me. But did you ever play Mutant League football?

I have not, but I want to. So the Facebook has gotten dialed in that I like video games from like 1988 to, I don't know, whatever the span is. But there was this game called Mutant League football. There was a cartoon. You don't remember any of that?

It's a little before. I've heard it, heard of it. But it was a video game cabinet and they had Mutant League football. And then you could play any game and they only chose Mutant League football. I don't know why that got, you know, because it wasn't, I mean, I don't know how many of our listeners played Mutant League football, but it was a fun game.

That's the point of what I'm trying to say. I'm off topic, Joseph, but it was a good game and I'd like to play it again. Yes.

Yes. Josh, your passion for Mutant League football. I think the listeners really can feel that coming through through the radio. But bring the games back, man. If we get nothing from this from this radio show today, bring bring the games back.

And, you know, we joke. But but getting back to the issue at hand, I think in a lot of ways, while a narrow ruling now, this is basically the end of the NCAA as we know it. And it's going to kind of gradually become an antiquated notion that is really we may be looking years from now. And it just is a nonexistent thing of the past. Something comes along, some different model comes along to replace it.

And it doesn't even resemble what we have today. You know, Joe, when these elite prospects, when college basketball and football is no longer attractive to these elite prospects and they go to the G League or some sort of minor league football system and they get away from college basketball and football, I still got four years of eligibility. Yeah. Yes.

If we can if we can if we can filter all the actual athletes out of collegiate play, then our day will come. If you have any questions for us at the show, the outlaw lawyer, our phone numbers 1-800-659-1186. That's 1-800-659-1186. You can email us at questions at the outlaw lawyer dot com. We'd love to hear from you up next. Joe, I think we got a listener question. We got a listener question. And before we take this listener question again, Josh gave you the contact information and has has basically issued an open challenge to any listener. Mutant League Football. If you want it with Josh Whittaker, give us a call. Shoot us an email and you can get it.

I would be willing to play a listener for a cash prize and Facebook Live that for everyone to see. I think we've got to say that we're going to set this up. But I'm going to tell you, I haven't played Mutant League Football in a long time. I don't remember if it's one player or two players.

So we're going to we'll we'll play if it's one player, we'll go two games against the computer and we'll take the point difference. There's ways around it, Josh. All right, Joseph, we'll take a break. We'll be right back. Up next on Outlaw Lawyer, we've got another listener question. We are answering a question about a marital interest in real property when it's being sold next.

All right, Joseph, we love listener questions and we got one today real quick before we get started. If you have a question for Joe and I, our phone number is 1-800-659-1186. That's 1-800-659-1186. You can call that number and leave a message for me and Joe here at the Outlaw Lawyer. Or you can leave a message for Whittaker and Hamer that will pass along to the law firm. If there's any legal help, you need the counsel of an attorney. You can also email us at questions.

That's plural. Questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. You can also visit us at theoutlawlawyer.com. All kinds of information on Joe and I, the law firm, all of our episodes are there for your listening pleasure.

You said it, Josh. We love listener questions. We love hearing from our listeners.

If you're ever sitting around at home and you're wondering what you need to do, you're bored, just pick up your phone and call the Outlaw Lawyer. Ask us literally any question that you have. Just talk to us. We just love to hear from you and we'd love to talk to you, answer any questions.

Just give us your thoughts. So we have another question that kind of borders on what we call family law and real estate law. But we've got Andrew asking us, he's telling us, I bought my house when I was single, but then I met my spouse and we got married.

If I decide to sell the house, will my spouse have to sign anything at closing? And so what we've got here is Andrew bought a house when he was single. So he owns some real property, as attorneys would say, and he is married now. If he entertains selling that property, he is the only one on title.

We would say he's the only one on the on the deed that conveyed ownership to him. And so his question to us is, if he sells, does his spouse have to be involved? Well, first off, I just want to say congratulations to Andrew and his spouse sound like truly lovely people.

And I wish them the best. But yeah, it's a it's a it's a question we get a lot. And there's a lot of confusion when we have clients come in around how marital interest in general affect a real estate closing and how they kind of interplay with with when you sell a property. So in this question, Andrew is asking, he bought the house when he was single. So he buys this house.

It's his property. Eventually he gets married. He has a spouse. And then he goes to sell the property.

And to simply answer Andrew's question, except for a limited number of circumstances, which, again, we could we could get into great detail here. But in the absence of either a prenuptial agreement or some free trader agreement or some anti nuptial, anti nuptial agreement, Andrew's spouse is going to have to sign and join in the execution of this deed. I think it's important to note that his spouse may not be entitled to any proceeds from the closing.

So his spouse's signature will be required to sell the property to his buyer. But I don't think that Andrew and his spouse are going to run into this argument. I hope they seem for on firm footing.

They and again, I wish them the best. So that's one of the best things that can happen for a couple with that. That always confuses folks when this comes up, especially in a situation where maybe the spouses are separated or maybe the spouses aren't getting along or maybe the spouses just like to keep their finances separate. This is an issue that comes up. So usually our proceeds check would be made out to whoever's on the deed. So Andrew, the proceeds check after closing would probably be made out to Andrew for him to do with what he would like. But his spouse's signature is still required and that can get messy. That can get messy.

And again, we can go into great detail because this can be a complex answer. But but for the purposes of this radio show, we want to keep it relatively simple. But but, you know, Andrew's wife, while she may not be a record owner of this property, she's got what we refer to as a marital interest in this property. And, you know, that as soon as they're married, that takes effect and it will be in effect until, again, either she joins in the execution of the deed or it could be terminated if the parties divorce and there's a divorce judgment that's entered.

And it could also be resolved. Again, we talked about a free trader or if they had entered into a prenup prior to marriage. There's other ways to resolve that interest. But in the absence of those things, she's got that marital interest and it has to be joined or else it hangs out there. And whoever buys this property from Andrew without the joiner of his spouse is going to have a title problem.

So it's it doesn't work both ways either. So it takes, you know, we say one to buy, two to sell. So if you're if you're married and you're buying property, there's a statute, North Carolina, that allows you to purchase the property without the signature of your spouse. Now, if you're getting a mortgage, your lender may want your spouse to join.

So there are some ways that law kind of can be eclipsed. But it's the general rule that you hear a lot of people say is one to buy, two to sell. That is the general rule. Again, like you said, in practice, if you're buying a house cash, it's it's not going to matter.

That's the easiest way to go. We encourage all of our listeners to accrue substantial amounts of money and buy everything they can with cash. And let us do your closing. But if you've got a lender, it's going to be lender specific. You know, legally, like Josh said, there's a statute that allows you to purchase individually without the joiner of your spouse. But we deal with a lot of banks. We deal with a lot of national banks and some lenders are going to are going to put up a fight.

They're going to want your spouse to join regardless in the execution. Josh, we talked a little bit about, you know, prenups and free traders and separation agreements. You want to elaborate a little bit on that just to give some background?

Yeah. So we we we see it from time to time with four folks get married, especially if they already have assets. They'll come together, meet with an attorney, agree on how they want the property they currently owned handled and how after after acquired. Once they get married, they acquire more property, kind of define how that's going to be handled. And so we call those prenuptial agreements. If you grew up watching 80s, 90s sitcoms, you know, anytime anybody asked for a prenup, that was that was the premise of a large amount of 80s and 90s sitcoms. But it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It can be a very smart thing in a lot of situations. But to go ahead and sit down and say, look, we're obviously we're getting married. We want everything to work out. We're happy. We're in love.

But things don't always work out. And, you know, here's what we want to do with that. I tell you what, man, my boys, they're going to have prenuptial agreements. Yeah, your boys will. I'll draft them for them. I like your boys. They're good people.

The they're they're not a bad word, you know. And so there's there's anti nuptial agreements. Those are a little more complicated. But if you're already married and you guys are just thinking about that now, you know, after the fact, you can kind of do the same thing. And a free trader, which I always thought was a cool word to be known as a free trader. But you and your spouse, as happy as you may be, you can go together and get a free trader sign, which basically allows you to act as if you were single. So you can transact business, buy and sell real property as if you were an unmarried individual.

And a lot of people will do that as well. I think it's an important distinction. You can transact business and acquire real property, but you're not single.

You know, you can't just do what you want. That's advice for Andrew in his early marriage. Right.

Andrew's going to stay married forever. I'm convinced. I feel good about him. He asks a lot of good questions. Great. Perfect writing. Great guy. But there's all you just the thing that I think a lot of people and I wouldn't think about it necessarily if I wasn't an attorney.

I didn't see these. You know, we see when stuff goes bad. And so when I give someone advice, when they're buying a house or when they're getting married, like I give them advice from that perspective. Like I've seen the worst of people and the worst that can happen. And and we want our clients to be prepared. So, you know, prenuptial agreement a long time ago, kind of an audio kind of a bad word, kind of a bad thing to think about.

Kind of thought of as like a jinx. But it's it's smart. It's smart. All your kids, man, every one of them have some more kids. We'll do some more prenups. I'm waiting for the boys to get over 16. I'm gonna start giving them all giving them all the horror stories. Your kids turn 16 and just get a draft prenup.

Study this again. If if our law firm can ever be of help to you, it's Whitaker and Hamer, Josh Whitaker, Joe Hamer. Our contact information, as always, is going to be 1-800-659-1186. That's 1-800-659-1186.

That will not be a live person talking to you. That's going to set up for you to leave a message for us that we will it gets emailed to us to me and Joe. If an attorney needs to reach out to you, you want to schedule a consult, we can do that for you. If you want to leave a message for the show, you've got a listener question, you know something that you want me and Joe to address.

We'll be happy to do that. So you can call us 1-800-659-1186. Our email address questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. That's also our Web site, www.theoutlawlawyer.com.

Lots of information there for you. Joseph, I enjoyed it. Josh, I always enjoy it. I really, it's one of the highlights of my week and my life to come in here into the studio to talk about legal issues with you. And I was very excited today to be able to talk about law intersecting with something else that's near and dear to our hearts, college sports. Joseph, the law affects everything.

We'll take a look at what happens this week and we'll be back with you next Saturday. Outlaw Lawyer is hosted by an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Some of the guests appearing on the show may be licensed North Carolina attorneys. Discussion of the show is meant to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice. Legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live had the opportunity to discuss the facts of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law in North Carolina and how these laws affect the average North Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly.