U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, the Judge in NCAA anti-trust case graduated from both Cal and Stanford
Here are some interesting things from the case (from WSJ):
"Use actual, meaningful words," Wilken said to one of the NCAA's lawyers on day one of the trail. "As opposed to aphorisms."
...she asked particularly tough questions of the plaintiffs, including why they are arguing for players get paid for their likenesses instead of "just saying you want to pay them more?"
Why, she asked this week, is it OK for a team to be paid by, and to use, Gatorade, and for players to be shown on TV drinking Gatorade on the sidelinebut it is harmful for students themselves to be paid by the company?
One of the major points the NCAA tried to make is that paying players would make college sports less competitive; the good teams would get better and the mediocre ones would struggle to improve. Amid one of several debates about whether this would, in fact, be the outcome of payment to players, Wilken chimed in: "Is competitive balance pro-competitive?"
In other words: Say the NCAA is right. Would a lack of competitiveness between teams actually make college sports a less competitive marketplace as far as consumers are concerned? It is a critical question in an antitrust case like this, where the NCAA has to prove that its restrictions on athlete pay serve to benefit competition in the marketplacenot necessarily on the field.
Wilken's question prompted murmurs in the courtroom. Then the witness on the stand, Stanford economist Roger Noll (testifying for the plaintiffs), answered, "No." The plaintiffs backed up that assertion with charts that showed a lack of competitiveness already exists at the top levels of football and men's basketball, with the same few teams showing up at the top of the rankings.
But the NCAA hasn't been the only victim of Wilken's straight-to-the-point questioning. More than once she has caused some uncomfortable shifting on the plaintiffs' side with another fundamental question: "Who is really harmed?"
Here are some interesting things from the case (from WSJ):
"Use actual, meaningful words," Wilken said to one of the NCAA's lawyers on day one of the trail. "As opposed to aphorisms."
...she asked particularly tough questions of the plaintiffs, including why they are arguing for players get paid for their likenesses instead of "just saying you want to pay them more?"
Why, she asked this week, is it OK for a team to be paid by, and to use, Gatorade, and for players to be shown on TV drinking Gatorade on the sidelinebut it is harmful for students themselves to be paid by the company?
One of the major points the NCAA tried to make is that paying players would make college sports less competitive; the good teams would get better and the mediocre ones would struggle to improve. Amid one of several debates about whether this would, in fact, be the outcome of payment to players, Wilken chimed in: "Is competitive balance pro-competitive?"
In other words: Say the NCAA is right. Would a lack of competitiveness between teams actually make college sports a less competitive marketplace as far as consumers are concerned? It is a critical question in an antitrust case like this, where the NCAA has to prove that its restrictions on athlete pay serve to benefit competition in the marketplacenot necessarily on the field.
Wilken's question prompted murmurs in the courtroom. Then the witness on the stand, Stanford economist Roger Noll (testifying for the plaintiffs), answered, "No." The plaintiffs backed up that assertion with charts that showed a lack of competitiveness already exists at the top levels of football and men's basketball, with the same few teams showing up at the top of the rankings.
But the NCAA hasn't been the only victim of Wilken's straight-to-the-point questioning. More than once she has caused some uncomfortable shifting on the plaintiffs' side with another fundamental question: "Who is really harmed?"