This is a follow-up to countless posts on the O'Bannon case.
The 9th Circuit found an anti-trust violation and that Division I men’s basketball and football players ought to be compensated for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. The problem with the decision is it upheld a trail court decision which instead reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules. For the plaintiffs, this was a Pyrrhic victory leaving them very little money, though the plaintiff attorneys did well. It does make life better for existing athlete as most schools (just not those in the 9th Circuit) have adopted rules, under new NCAA decisions, that permit paying the athlete for the full cost of college.
In any event, both the NCAA and plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court refusing to hear the appeal was expected. It is possible that a case could be brought in another circuit by plaintiffs seeking to remove the limitations placed on damages that could lead to a court decision that conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in O’cannon. I doubt the NCAA will start the case, since its member schools have adopted rules in essence accepting the 9th Circuit's decision and remedies.
The O’Bannon case impacts a case brought by sports attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and David Greenspan on behalf of players under federal antitrust law. Their case is being heard by the same trial judge that heard the O’Bannon case. They contend that the NCAA and its member schools, conferences and affiliated organizations have unlawfully conspired to cap the value of athletic scholarships to tuition, room, board, books and fees (e.g., full cost) which is a weird argument since it was the very same trail judge who found this was the damages the anti-trust violation in the O'Bannon case. The remedy asserted in the new case would be that colleges to financially compete for players. If they win, I can see the demise of the current model of revenue sports paying for non-revenue sports.
The 9th Circuit found an anti-trust violation and that Division I men’s basketball and football players ought to be compensated for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. The problem with the decision is it upheld a trail court decision which instead reasoned that, by allowing colleges to offer student-athletes additional compensation up to the full cost of attendance, the NCAA cures the antitrust harm caused by its otherwise unlawful amateurism rules. For the plaintiffs, this was a Pyrrhic victory leaving them very little money, though the plaintiff attorneys did well. It does make life better for existing athlete as most schools (just not those in the 9th Circuit) have adopted rules, under new NCAA decisions, that permit paying the athlete for the full cost of college.
In any event, both the NCAA and plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court refusing to hear the appeal was expected. It is possible that a case could be brought in another circuit by plaintiffs seeking to remove the limitations placed on damages that could lead to a court decision that conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in O’cannon. I doubt the NCAA will start the case, since its member schools have adopted rules in essence accepting the 9th Circuit's decision and remedies.
The O’Bannon case impacts a case brought by sports attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and David Greenspan on behalf of players under federal antitrust law. Their case is being heard by the same trial judge that heard the O’Bannon case. They contend that the NCAA and its member schools, conferences and affiliated organizations have unlawfully conspired to cap the value of athletic scholarships to tuition, room, board, books and fees (e.g., full cost) which is a weird argument since it was the very same trail judge who found this was the damages the anti-trust violation in the O'Bannon case. The remedy asserted in the new case would be that colleges to financially compete for players. If they win, I can see the demise of the current model of revenue sports paying for non-revenue sports.