1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NCAA lost the O'Bannon case

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Buffnik, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,671
    Likes Received:
    16,361
    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."


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


    Wow. So if Florida State wants to start selling Jameis Winston jerseys and paying him a %, I think they can do it.
     
  2. absinthe

    absinthe Ambitious but rubbish. Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    25,881
    Likes Received:
    1,499
    Pandora's box is now open
     
  3. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,935
    Likes Received:
    4,945
    Not quite. Appeal time
     
  4. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,671
    Likes Received:
    16,361
    Are there courts above that short of SCOTUS?
     
  5. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,495
    Likes Received:
    4,492
    If the NCAA is smart, they'll work a deal where conferences are the ones who control the revenues from the sale of those items. That way, they can be distributed back in a way that won't give one school a huge advantage over other schools.
     
  6. cmgoods

    cmgoods Olympic Sports Mod Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,254
    Likes Received:
    475
    I have no interest in reading the ruling, but many people are saying that the ruling isn't really all that bad for the NCAA.
     
  7. WizzersGhost

    WizzersGhost Banned BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    56
    Aw, c'mon, Man! Its got to be chock full of all sorts of legalese goodies and its only 99 pages! A bargain from a Feddy Court judge...they're known to take 10 pages to explain jurisdiction alone. The justification for Sherman Anti-Trust application has got to be a howler.

    Now its time for a reconsideration before an en banc panel of the District Court, then it's appeal time: to the 9th Circus, as I recall. Three years away from finality, at least.
     
  8. GoBeers

    GoBeers Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    33
    what exactly does this change? that statement says the NCAA make a conference prevent players from earning money from TV rights and likeness rights. But in most cases, it is the conference that collects the rights money (outside of the NCAA mens basketball tournament). Can't the conferences just set their own rules and keep most/all of the $$ for their member schools... exactly what they now? Wouldn't a number of groups then have to sue each individual conference?

    Funny this comes out a day after the NCAA gives the P5 conferences the right to offer more benefits. P5 is in control now, and was already in control yesterday it seems.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  9. J.R. Ewing

    J.R. Ewing Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,877
    Likes Received:
    3,608
    I do not like the direction college athletics is headed.
     
  10. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,494
    Likes Received:
    605
    I think greed is going to kill College sports....
     
  11. FLounder

    FLounder The Buffs will rise again! Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,178
    Likes Received:
    464
    I want CU to be perennial national champions. Kill me.
     
  12. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    CU doesn't have the $$$$ to even compete.
     
  13. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,140
    Likes Received:
    2,022
    The Auburn and Alabama boosters are going to crush the rest of America.
     
  14. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Those ****ers will keep living in a double wide to keep giving money to the schools.
     
  15. leftybuff

    leftybuff Iconoclast Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    24,970
    Likes Received:
    2,668
    Yes, circuit court of appeals, if I am not mistaken, then SCOTUS, the God....
     
  16. CUFan

    CUFan Welcome back Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    469
    UBL?
     
  17. tsarbomba

    tsarbomba One Damn Dirty Ape Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    140
    Having looked through the O'bannon opinion, I think that it is both limited and huge, but not for the reasons that people have been generally mentioning.

    First, it does not mandate paying players for anything. It says that the NCAA cannot restrict the ability of schools and conferences to pay the players compensation for the use of their names and likenesses (while the original lawsuit was really about video game money, the court decision is all about TV money). They payment does not need to happen when the player is in school, and the NCAA can set an annual cap as low as $5,000 per player, per year. That would mean that each university could be out an extra $500,000 or so a year for football. I bet that this compensation will be organized on the conference level. Also, the compensation can be deferred until graduation, so the player gets a check when they leave school. The compensation can be on top of a full cost of attendance scholarship.

    I wonder about the intersection of Title IX and these payments. I think that a good argument can be made that Title IX does not apply, because this is actual compensation, and not an opportunity to play and get a scholarship. Still, you never know what a federal judge is going to do when they get their hands on the inevitable federal Title IX lawsuit. Obviously if Title IX applies, the costs double. Another interesting thing is the fact that conference networks like the PAC-12 Network show things like women's soccer, volleyball, basketball, and such. So the women are on TV, although not on the huge revenue TV. As long as they show these games on the Pac-12 Net (and similar nets), I can't see how the conferences could justify cutting women athletes out.

    One thing that this could to is bring back an NCAA football video game, or games. Right now the conferences have TV contracts that pay a set amount. So, if they have to pay players to stay competitive, they are out that money--it is a zero sum game. They will want to add to the revenue stream, and a video game may do that (although I can't see it coming close to filling the financial hole that paying the players will create, it will be something).

    Since none of the Big 5 are going to want to be at a complete competitive disatvantage recruiting-wise, I expect that each of the Power-5, and Notre Dame, will quickly establish trust funds to pay each eligible player the maximum $5,000 as soon as they are legally able to do so. Of course, this only elevates the advantage that the recent P5 autonomy vote created for recruiting into the P5. All other things being equal, it is hard for me to see many recruits taking a non-P5 school over a P5 school when the difference is not only a full scholarship versus a non-full one, but a check for $20-25k at the end of school (minus taxes, of course). This gives schools like CU a huge advantage over any non P5 school, and will result in a further separation between the talent of players playing in the P5 and the rest, as you will be unlikely to see competitive athletes go to the (now) lower tier, absent a reason that they really really really want to go to the lower tier school, like family ties, geography, or having enough family money not to care.

    In the end, I think that this will solidify and straighten the distinction between P5 and non P5, and in 10 years they will really have to create a separate division. Personally, I would like to see a full-size 100-plus team Division 1 on an equal playing field, and I think that this P5 vs. non-P5 future will not be good for college football. That being said, I would rather see CU with the big boys than stuck in the Mountain West like CSU.

    I don't know how many of you remember what may have been the most asinine editorial in the history of the Denver Post, written in the midst of conference shake ups, and advocating for CU to join the MWC. Take a look at it. It was asinine then (we all knew it). It was boneheaded, thoughtless, and ignorant then (we all knew it). One can only imagine where we would be if the CU brass had been nincompoops enough to take it seriously.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2014
    bombay, Buffs@5345' and MtnBuff like this.
  18. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,437
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Tsar,

    Thanks for taking the time to craft an intelligent and well written post on the issue. I think it is way to early to say where this ends up but it certainly does open a can of worms.

    With the influence that P5 programs have in many states and the "who cares" attitude in the remainding states I wonder how long it is until we see legislation providing the NCAA and/or the conferences Sherman exemptions not unlike what MLB and some other organizations have. Siince we are not dealing with a constitutional question congress can choose to remedy this overriding the court.

    This all assuming that it isn't overturned on appeal.
     
  19. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,473
    Likes Received:
    4,680
    So, does the school pay the player with money the school makes off the player's name or does the player earn the money by selling his/her name but limited to $5,000 per year?
     
  20. tsarbomba

    tsarbomba One Damn Dirty Ape Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    140
    What the decision does is prohibit the NCAA from enforcing any rule that would limit the ability of schools/conferences to pay the players up to $5000 per year, which can be deferred. It does not require the NCAA to allow the athletes to be able to sign endorsements or directly make money based on their name/image. I believe this is why O'Bannon's lawyers say that they are going to appeal (they do not in any way consider this to be a total victory, in fact I think that they feel like they pretty much lost).

    Here is the language from the most important part of the judge's decision, which spells it all out (sorry for any formatting issues, but I pulled it straight off a PDF, and it probably has all kinds of spacing and similar issues, but I did not want to spend the time to go through and fix them.


     
  21. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,671
    Likes Received:
    16,361
    fwiw, I do agree with O'Bannon and his basic premise. He saw tons of people playing a NCAA basketball game that was generating millions of dollars and for which he was digitized as one of the star players... and he didn't get a say in how his likeness was used nor did he make a dime off of it. That's wrong.
     
  22. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,473
    Likes Received:
    4,680
    Any of you legal beagle wannabe's care to speculate how this ruling, if upheld, would have affected the Jeremy Bloom case? Seems like it might have afforded him the ability to remain on the team but maybe $5K wouldn't have been enough money to support his skiing. His was kind of a different case.
     
  23. tsarbomba

    tsarbomba One Damn Dirty Ape Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    140
    I can't see that it would have made a bit of difference. Again, the ruling only says that the NCAA can't prevent the schools/conferences from paying players up to $5k per year for use of likeness. It says nothing about prohibiting placers from making obey outside of that context on their name/likeness, which is by O'Bannon is probably appealing the ruling.

    And . . . I'm not a wannabe. I'm a full-fledged beagle. :lol:
     
  24. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,473
    Likes Received:
    4,680
    Then shut your pie hole! I want to hear from wannabe's!! :lol:
     
  25. Buffenuf

    Buffenuf massive tool

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    2,575
    Likes Received:
    299
    Not a beagle, but as I recall, Bloom's case involved direct payments to him or a trust for him, for endorsement of products. O'Bannon involves use of his name/likeness without payment to or permission from O'Bannon. The NCAA thought that if they allowed Bloom to receive endorsements, then the whole kNU team would be out endorsing John Deere tractors for huge bucks!
     
  26. Scotch

    Scotch Registered User Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    431
    :nod: As long as coaching salaries continue to go through the roof, I think its only fair to start going down this road with the players. Lawyers well versed in Title IX have to be drooling right now.
     

Share This Page