Court Rules Against Paying College Athletes

There was another court decision Wednesday morning in the ongoing legal battle about whether or not NCAA athletes should be better compensated.

“There are plenty of important issues for the Supreme Court to decide if we decide to petition it”, Waxman said.

The ruling might open the door for the NCAA to take the O’Bannon case before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case is expected to be remanded to a federal district court in New Jersey, where, in turn, any eventual appeal would go to a different circuit court.

Judges Jay S. Bybee and Gordon J. Quist felt compelled to use italics to make a point that has been the centerpiece of Emmert’s response to the O’Bannon litigation and to other demands for change. A few had started to pull out of their agreements with EA prior to the cancellation of the NCAA Football series and they were never even sued by any current or former athletes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a case that applies only to so-called Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association – that is, the big-time programs – and only for basketball and football players at that level. 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. The difference between those values is what each college is permitted to pay out to its athletes.

Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said the ruling supports the idea that college athletes are not employees.

The ruling can give the case hope, since an alternative would have been to find that rules restricting compensation are justified under antitrust law as the NCAA stated.

Thomas wrote that payment of $5,000 in deferred compensation would not significantly reduce consumer demand for college sports. “I think we’ve put that to rest”. These games have made the NCAA a lot of money, so it’s not silly to think they’ll probably want to do that again someday. The NCAA argued that providing players with a share of that compensation would be antithetical to its mission of fostering amateur sports.

Not now, but maybe, just like the rest of the player compensation debate, which isn’t ending anytime soon.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Hausfeld, characterized Wednesday’s opinion as affirmation that “the NCAA and its member schools are a price-fixing cartel that has long violated the antitrust laws”.

Schools would have been compelled to set aside $5,000 per year for each football and men s basketball player (and possibly other athletes) in exchange for the use of their name, imagine and likeness, with the funds accessible upon completion of eligibility.

The panel agreed with Wilken’s conclusion that the NCAA’s commitment to amateurism is a “concrete” procompetitive effect and increases college sports’ appeal to consumers. “The athletes as a whole have a right to participate in the broadcast licensing market”.