O'Bannon Wins

[SFlonghorngirl]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-ncaa/13801277/

COLLEGE

Judge releases ruling on O'Bannon case: NCAA loses

Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY Sports

1 minute ago

Facebook

Twitter

Google Plus

more

A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA's limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page ruling in favor of a group of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, issued an injunction that will prevent the NCAA the "from enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from offering their FBS football or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid."

Wilken said the injunction will not be stayed pending any appeal of her ruling, but it will not take effect until the start of the next FBS football and Division I basketball recruiting cycle

VERDICT: Judge Wilken's ruling

"I think it's a fantastic win for the student-athletes, and it's rare that you have victories against the NCAA and victories in this type of antitrust case but I think it shows the facts were clear that there was an unfairness here," said Robert Carey, the attorney for Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller, who sued in a separate case focusing on college sports-themed video games.

Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will not be prevented from implementing rules capping the amount of compensation that may be paid athletes while they are in school. However, she ruled, "the NCAA will not be permitted to set this cap below the cost of attendance, as the term is defined in its current bylaws."

She wrote that the injunction also will prohibit the NCAA from enforcing any rules that would prevent schools and conferences from "offering to deposit a limited share of licensing revenue in trust for their FBS football and Division I basketball recruits, payable when they leave school or their eligibility expires."

The injunction will allow the NCAA to set a cap on the amount of money that may be held in trust, but it will not be allowed the set that cap at less than $5,000 in 2014 dollars for every year an athlete remains academically eligible to compete.

The ruling comes a day after the NCAA Board of Directors voted 16-2 to give the five power conferences and their 65 members a level of legislative autonomy never seen before in the history of the organization.

Contributing: Rachel Axon

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

RD, would love to hear your take.

NCAA appeal?

 

[java]

They have to pay it, as I read the ruling, while waiting for the appeal.  They are currently talking about a stipend of how many dollars?  $2,000?  She capped it at $5,000.  The licensing cut only applies to Division I football and basketball.  If any of you followed the feed during summations, it was easy to follow where this was headed.  

This was exactly where the judges questions were leading.  It was clear money was made on Division I basketball and FBS football.  It was clear the lawsuit focused on Names, Images, and Likeness.  It was clear that she paid attention to the NCAA response regarding amateur status and payments in school, thus the trust.

One didn't need to be an attorney to follow her reasoning.  Some schools should not be in FBS or Division I.  We are getting ready to find out who is willing to pay the freight.

 

[BudreauReye]

There is a mystery going on that really needs to be resolved. Will there be a Crossfire or will there not?

Some people came here for the specific purpose of having access to Crossfire - and then it's stopped?

Some sort of explanation and announcement of intentions here would be good for everyone, IMO.

I know a lot of folks who want to maintain the status quo will not like this.  But, that is just too bad.  The times they are a changing, and if the nature of colleges sports changes because of that, then all I can say is welcome to the world the way it is today.

 

[texasdobbs]

I will have to wait and see how this plays out... although I still believe this will be overturned. ...

 

[java]

If the big boys take over part of their own governance, then the NCAA must give up a portion of it's cut.  Either that, or the big boys break away and set up a governing body with rules, supoena power, and great big teeth for rule-breakers.

It's my understanding that the NCAA takes a huge cut, and I can't see what they do to earn it.  Without  their outside counsel, it would have been wholesale slaughter in that courtroom.

 

[Chris Flanagan]

Here is the full conclusion:

CONCLUSION 
 College sports generate a tremendous amount of interest, as 
well as revenue and controversy. Interested parties have strong 
and conflicting opinions about the best policies to apply in 
regulating these sports. Before the Court in this case is only 
whether the NCAA violates antitrust law by agreeing with its 
member schools to restrain their ability to compensate Division I 
men’s basketball and FBS football players any more than the 
current association rules allow. For the reasons set forth above, 
the Court finds that this restraint does violate antitrust law. 
 To the extent other criticisms have been leveled against the 
NCAA and college policies and practices, those are not raised and 
cannot be remedied based on the antitrust causes of action in this 
lawsuit. It is likely that the challenged restraints, as well as 
other perceived inequities in college athletics and higher 
education generally, could be better addressed as a policy matter 
by reforms other than those available as a remedy for the 
antitrust violation found here. Such reforms and remedies could 
be undertaken by the NCAA, its member schools and conferences, or 
Congress. Be that as it may, the Court will enter an injunction, in a separate order, to cure the specific violations found in this 
case. 
 The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff 
class. Plaintiffs shall recover their costs from the NCAA. The 
parties shall not file any post-trial motions based on arguments 
that have already been made. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
I haven't read the whole 99 page ruling but with my limited legal experience, it will have the finding of facts, applicable laws and then conclusion. I agree with the court's decision in that the NCAA did violate anti-trust laws by not allowing the players to make money on their own likeness. 

 

[Chris Flanagan]

BTW, it allows for a trust fund to be established on the player's behalf so if a player like Johnny Football is making money on his trademark (Johnny Football), then they will have that money set aside. 

It doesn't address paying them a wage, just to make money off of their likeness. That pay for play is in the court's pipeline though. 

 

[Chris Flanagan]

I know a lot of folks who want to maintain the statis quo will not like this.  But, that is just too bad.  The times they are a changing, and if the nature of colleges sports changes because of that, then all I can say is welcome to the world the way it is today.

In the 1970s and 1980s, college sports weren't as huge as they are now. Today's college football is essentially a minor league which for football fans is an appetizer for the Sunday games. 

I agree with you, you can't prevent an adult from making money off of their own likeness. 

 

[texasdobbs]

[tweet'497884938252075008']

 

[BudreauReye]

In the 1970s and 1980s, college sports weren't as huge as they are now. Today's college football is essentially a minor league which for football fans is an appetizer for the Sunday games. 

I agree with you, you can't prevent an adult from making money off of their own likeness. 

Really, no matter how much it might change college sports,  I think that the situation as it exists today insults the college athlete.  Colleges, equipment suppliers and the media make a lot of money off of college sports, and very few college athletes go on to make any money whatsoever off of their skills.

 

[java]

Chris, she did cap the licensing at $5,000 per athlete, did she not?  Did she not also average it among all athletes?  One of the arguments raised during the last day was one of record keeping expenditures.  She asked if it could be capped and averaged among all athletes.  That may be why I translated the licensing in in that manner.

Her questioning was very direct.  It was almost a stream of consciousness, back and forth, accepting and rejecting different arguments.  O'Bannon tried to throw in a new definition at the end, which she rejected.  It was interesting.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

If I were in charge of things, I'd simply not use anyone's likeness and avoid the matter altogether.

I tend to side with Steve Patterson on this issue. The student athlete is already getting a ton of reward. If a player is good, he gets paid on draft day. And he can leave with a degree that he was able to earn at no charge, . . made life-long connections, etc., Those rewards come over a life time.

Otherwise, I fear that this will cost us the last bastion of true blue football - the college game. I no longer even watch the NFL. They've become a collection of mercenaries with loyalty to no one. If the college game changes to be more like the NFL, then I'm likely to spend less time following it, too.

 

[Chris Flanagan]

Chris, she did cap the licensing at $5,000 per athlete, did she not?  Did she not also average it among all athletes?  One of the arguments raised during the last day was one of record keeping expenditures.  She asked if it could be capped and averaged among all athletes.  That may be why I translated the licensing in in that manner.

Her questioning was very direct.  It was almost a stream of consciousness, back and forth, accepting and rejecting different arguments.  O'Bannon tried to throw in a new definition at the end, which she rejected.  It was interesting.

She offered the $5,000 but I doubt O'bannon's side will take that. MAYBE as a floor but not for every athlete. I am still reading the ruling. I can't guarantee I will understand everything given that I begin my legal studies in the fall but I doubt the plantiffs will want the money averaged out per athlete. Again, more litigation. YEAH!!!  

If Johnny Football can make $1,000,000 off of his nickname, pictures, autographs and jersey sales that will be put into a trust fund that he can use after CFB, then why shouldn't he? That's always been my position.

I do believe Judge Wilken's comments on the NCAA and amateurism were harsh but dead on. 

 

[Chris Flanagan]

If I were in charge of things, I'd simply not use anyone's likeness and avoid the matter altogether.

I tend to side with Steve Patterson on this issue. The student athlete is already getting a ton of reward. If a player is good, he gets paid on draft day. And he can leave with a degree that he was able to earn at no charge, . . made life-long connections, etc., Those rewards come over a life time.

Otherwise, I fear that this will cost us the last bastion of true blue football - the college game. I no longer even watch the NFL. They've become a collection of mercenaries with loyalty to no one. If the college game changes to be more like the NFL, then I'm likely to spend less time following it, too.

I believe the idea of "00" jerseys have been suggested. That would avoid any likeness infringements if they don't give out that number. But if Texas sells a #10 jersey, they should pay Vince Young for that likeness. 

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I believe the idea of "00" jerseys have been suggested. That would avoid any likeness infringements if they don't give out that number. But if Texas sells a #10 jersey, they should pay Vince Young for that likeness. 

Oh yea, well Marty Akins and Brett Stafford, among a few, might want a piece of that pie. Unless of course the legal eagles are now in the business of reading the consumer's mind?

 

[Throthefade]

There isn't an NCAA 2015 this year because of him therefore I hate him. 

 

[texasdobbs]

If I were in charge of things, I'd simply not use anyone's likeness and avoid the matter altogether.

I tend to side with Steve Patterson on this issue. The student athlete is already getting a ton of reward. If a player is good, he gets paid on draft day. And he can leave with a degree that he was able to earn at no charge, . . made life-long connections, etc., Those rewards come over a life time.

Otherwise, I fear that this will cost us the last bastion of true blue football - the college game. I no longer even watch the NFL. They've become a collection of mercenaries with loyalty to no one. If the college game changes to be more like the NFL, then I'm likely to spend less time following it, too.

This i agree 100 percent. .. I'm not going to donate my money for an athlete to get a free education and him make more money than I do....
High school football may be the only thing left... well until the lawyers go after them too...

 

[GBT]

This is so stupid. just stop using their likeness in video games etc. if you look at how much money players bring to the schools, its chicken feed. Most all the money is made from retail sales, boosters' donations, etc... Players actually have nothing to do with that. Plus when you look at profits...there is none for nearly all programs. Most programs lose money. Even Texas doesn't make that much after you subtract all the expenses each year.