“Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Vote No.”

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. prometheefeu says:

    Maybe it’s because NCAA athletes already get scholarships, facilities, personnel, sometimes favorable treatment from professors, fame, a shot at a professional career in a well-respected field, etc… They don’t need the help of other students.

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    Curt Flood got paid more than the average worker at the time. I guess you feel like he was being treated fairly by the owners.

  3. KDK says:

    I teach this and similar cases in class and would say that the students, in most years, are about evenly divided in their views on this. Many take the view espoused above by prometheefeu that the athletes are already well-compensated and thus not exploited. Others find the current system corrupt, for all of the obvious reasons.

    I do think that another factor, related to the “too close to home” point, is the way in which non-athlete students perceive the athletes *as students.* That is, at least for revenue-producing athletes, they are correctly viewed in many cases as students in name only – about half will never graduate, they lack the entry qualifications to which other students are held, and are not subject to the same academic standards. In some well-publicized cases they are not even talking real courses. I strongly suspect this impacts student views on the subject, generates resentment in some, and prevents the sort of “solidarity” one might otherwise expect to see from fellow students.

    On the specific issue of union representation, I believe my students were uniformly supportive, in part because of non-monetary issues such as health care, practice and game schedules, etc. The divisions emerged when amateurism was challenged more directly, as in the recent Kessler antitrust filing.