Appeals court rules NCAA in violation of antitrust laws

In Wednesday’s ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed with the lower court that NCAA rules violate federal antitrust laws.

“We have not completely reviewed the court’s 78-page decision, but we agree with the court that the injunction ‘allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year was erroneous, ‘” NCAA president Mark Emmert said in a statement.

The case was brought by Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball star for the University of California, Los Angeles, who filed suit in 2009.

In particular it also affirmed a few of the growing body of law that says, yes the NCAA can be held to violate Anti-Trust laws, which is a shift and could have real effect on athlete collective rights. Earlier this year, the five most powerful conferences voted to allow colleges to offer athletes the full cost of attendance, an amount typically several thousand dollars more than previous scholarship limits.

“The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts can not and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules”, the three-person panel wrote in what is known as the O’Bannon case.

Instead of paying players a share of the billions schools receive in licensing revenue for big-budget football and men’s basketball programs, the panel ruled that it is sufficient for schools to compensate athletes for the cost of attending school.

The case could be decisive in determining the fate of the NCAA’s cherished amateurism rules, given that other legal challenges to those policies – one of which would create a virtual free market for college athletes – wait on the sideline.

The athletes’ lawyers told the 9th Circuit they are not seeking a “pay-for-play” system, but merely a few compensation for the use of athletes’ images in the media landscape, from video games to March Madness. The NCAA has a lot to sort out when it comes to athlete compensation, but it’s always been in favor of making more money.