And now for something way more important to discuss: Federal Judge Finds NCAA's Player Rules Violate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://chronicle.com/article/Federal-Judge-Finds-NCAAs/148337/

Federal Judge Finds NCAA's Player Rules Violate Antitrust Laws

The ruling hands the plaintiffs, who include the former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, a win in a case that threatens the NCAA's principles of amateurism.
By Brad Wolverton

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has violated federal antitrust laws by unreasonably restraining big-time athletes from trading on their images and likenesses, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The ruling, which the association is expected to appeal, could give major-college football and basketball players the chance to earn thousands of dollars a year in deferred compensation for the commercial use of their images.

The 99-page decision, by Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., includes an injunction enjoining the NCAA from enforcing rules that prohibit colleges from offering elite football and basketball players a “limited share” of the revenues generated off their names.

In a move that surprised several legal experts, Judge Wilken said the NCAA could cap the amount players could earn, a concession that could help colleges maintain competitive balance and keep college sports from being completely professionalized.

The cap could not be less than $5,000 a year. Colleges could choose to pay less than that, but they could not conspire to set prices, the judge said.

The ruling does not allow players to earn money for endorsements, a move that the judge said would undermine the NCAA’s efforts to protect against the commercial exploitation of athletes.
To pay players, the judge suggested that colleges could set aside money in a trust fund that athletes could tap once they complete their NCAA eligibility.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball star, called the ruling a “major step toward decency for college athletes.”

Others described it as a landmark decision that could lead to the downfall of amateurism.

“This decision puts the NCAA’s ability to maintain its traditional model of college sports on life support,” said Matthew Mitten, a law professor at Marquette University and director of its National Sports Law Institute.

Darius Robinson, a former Clemson University football player and one of some two dozen plaintiffs named in the case, said the ruling clarifies that college sports is a big business and that players have earned a right to share in the riches.

“This is the turning point,” he said. “It’s going to get real for athletes.”

‘Less-Restrictive’ Means
What has come to be known as the O’Bannon case is the first in a long line of legal challenges for the NCAA, which just enacted a new governance system aimed in part at providing more benefits for players.

In a statement responding to Friday’s ruling, the association said that it had not violated the antitrust laws and that it was committed to fully supporting athletes.

“We note that the court’s decision sets limits on compensation, but are reviewing the full decision and will provide further comment later,” said Donald Remy, the NCAA’s chief legal officer.

During a three-week trial, in June, the NCAA argued that its limits on player pay were necessary to help promote both competitive balance among colleges and the academic integration of athletes. Witnesses for the association, including its president, Mark Emmert, argued that the expense of paying football and basketball players could harm or even doom some lower-profile sports. The association asserted that those pay limits are part of the appeal of college sports for fans, as athletes are competing for the love of the game and not for money.

Judge Wilken saw things differently. She shot down all of the association’s so-called procompetitive justifications for restraining player pay, saying the NCAA’s limits could be achieved through “less restrictive means.”

She also said the association had failed to prove that its restrictions on pay were a "driving force" behind consumer interest in big-time college sports. And she said it was not clear why paying players would be “any more problematic” in terms of the academic integration of athletes than paying other students who provide services to the university, such as the student newspaper's staff members.

Limited restrictions on athlete compensation, she wrote, "may help integrate student-athletes into the academic communities of their schools, which may in turn improve the schools’ college education product.”

In a key finding, she ruled that a market exists for players to share in the revenue generated from live television broadcasts. She cited TV contracts presented by the plaintiffs at the trial that appeared to transfer players' rights to broadcasters.

Many legal experts had considered it a stretch for players to receive a cut of TV money. But some said on Friday that the judge's cap on compensation could help insulate her opinion on appeal.

A 'Professional Approach'
The ruling will not give former athletes like Mr. Robinson or his Clemson teammates a share of licensing revenue that colleges earned from the use of their images, because it will not take effect until the start of the next NCAA recruiting cycle, and it won't begin to offer possible benefits to athletes until July 2016. Former players, however, could still sue for damages they believe they are due.

Mr. Robinson, who completed his Clemson eligibility last season, says it doesn't bother him that the ruling includes no payout for him and other former players. He joined the case a year ago along with a half-dozen other players who were still competing in college sports. He was motivated in part by seeing a resemblance between himself and a senior Clemson cornerback in an NCAA-licensed video game.

In an interview Friday, he said he was grateful for everything Clemson did for him during his three and a half years on its campus. "I think Clemson did take care of us," he said. "They did their best to try to provide us with the most resources possible."

But he and other plaintiffs believed they were due a share of the revenue generated from the use of their images.

"That's what we were aiming for," he said after learning of the ruling. "We wanted to get athletes a little more comfortable. We do hard work and deserve more."

With all of his football commitments—"say what you want about it, but college sports are a big-time business"—he didn't have time to work a regular job during college. So he took a position with a network-marketing company, hoping to sell mobile phones and phone plans on the side.

A Clemson compliance officer learned about Mr. Robinson's job when he mentioned it on social media, Mr. Robinson said, and he was cautioned about an NCAA rule preventing players from using their names to promote a business.

"According to the NCAA, the rule is that a student-athlete can have his own business," Mr. Robinson told Sports Illustrated last year. "But they were saying that I couldn't have it because I couldn't detach my name from it. They were saying I couldn't promote it. ... I didn't see a reason for me having a business if I couldn't promote it."

Assuming it is not overturned, Judge Wilken's ruling would enjoin the NCAA from enforcing rules that inhibit players in those kinds of ways. But it will still be difficult for players like Mr. Robinson to work outside of college and sports, he said.

Mr. Robinson, who trained with the Buffalo Bills this summer before he injured his shoulder and was released, said the commitment college athletes make is no different than that of professional athletes.

"A professional is someone who does something on a consistent basis where they master that skill," he said. "The collegiate athlete, the approach they're taking, it's definitely a professional approach."

**Ensis Ferrae**

I've always felt that the NCAA needed to do something about this situation... However, I'm not entirely sure that THIS is the way to go about it.

Most college athletes, even "big time" ones end up not doing so well on the professional front... Personally, I'm a fan of full scholarship athletes, or athletes in general getting a stipend.

Or, a pay system similar to what Rugby had around the turn of the 20th century (basically, players could be payed a wage that was equal to whatever job they did as compensation for "lost time" from that job) Obviously, as college athletes don't often have time for a job, this should be a fairly low number, but still allow for the outside purchase of food/drink, and possible vehicle/apartment, etc.

**curran12**

It is a dicey issue.

On the one hand, i don't believe that a student athlete should be so owned by their college that they are forbidden from reaping the benefits of their accomplishments and fame. On the other, I wonder how a system of paying student athletes would work.

As Ensis pointed out, it is not a simple thing as most student athletes do not have time for a job or anything to compare income with. So I'm not 100% sure this is the right way, either.

Need to think on it.

**djones520**

curran12 wrote:
It is a dicey issue.

On the one hand, i don't believe that a student athlete should be so owned by their college that they are forbidden from reaping the benefits of their accomplishments and fame. On the other, I wonder how a system of paying student athletes would work.

As Ensis pointed out, it is not a simple thing as most student athletes do not have time for a job or anything to compare income with. So I'm not 100% sure this is the right way, either.

Need to think on it.

Given that these athletes aren't paying a penny for their $60,000+ college educations, it is not like they aren't being compensated.

**curran12**

That assumes all college athletes are all on full-ride scholarships. Which many are not.

**Ensis Ferrae**

curran12 wrote:
That assumes all college athletes are all on full-ride scholarships. Which many are not.

Perhaps it's also a problem of the US system of sports? I mean, if you look at the UK's "academy" system for both Rugby (union) and Football (soccer), neither are truly tied to a school. There is still of course, the various sports clubs at many-most schools, but they aren't viewed as fully as being "professional development" programs for people wishing to play sports for a living the way that many American University programs do, especially when you look at American Football, and Basketball.

What I'm saying is that, IF we were to be able to create this same sort of academy system, that untied itself from a scholastic setting it would almost eliminate the need for the NCAA (or at least a need to change its rules), and probably free up more scholarship for people who would use them for more, appropriate degrees (if you look at professional athletics, many of those guys went to school for 3+ years, and either have no degree, or a degree in "underwater basket-weaving")

**curran12**

While I agree to the idea from a principle standpoint, I believe the problem lies in the reality of how integral to many universities the business of college sports is.

We currently are in a system that many college athletic programs bring in so much revenue that to simply cut it out and make it a separate entity would most certainly imperil the entire school. Now that certainly is not the right way of things, don't get me wrong. I fully agree that many of the big-time athletics schools (looking at you, SEC) need considerable overhauls to making student athletes get a better education. However, we have to accept the rather bitter pill that college athletics is huge money, and cutting out the monetized system would put far more than athletics programs on the chopping block.

**kronk**

They are getting paid. They're getting a $30,000 per year tuition to major universities, plus room and board.

Cry me a fething river.

**curran12**

Again. That is assuming that all college athletes are on full-ride scholarships. Many are not. Hate to repeat myself, but seriously.

**LordofHats**

curran12 wrote:
While I agree to the idea from a principle standpoint, I believe the problem lies in the reality of how integral to many universities the business of college sports is.

We currently are in a system that many college athletic programs bring in so much revenue that to simply cut it out and make it a separate entity would most certainly imperil the entire school. Now that certainly is not the right way of things, don't get me wrong. I fully agree that many of the big-time athletics schools (looking at you, SEC) need considerable overhauls to making student athletes get a better education. However, we have to accept the rather bitter pill that college athletics is huge money, and cutting out the monetized system would put far more than athletics programs on the chopping block.

As I explained last time we talked about this (via the Longhorns) this is a complete myth. Almost all the money made by college sports is made by Basketball and Football, and that money is almost entirely used paying for the sports programs at UTA. Less than 10% of that money was 'profit' used in other areas of the school. And again, this was the Longhorns, the most valuable college sports program in the country. Most schools (which is nearly all of them) lose money on their sports program and are paid by the NCAA to keep the program going.

The idea that schools or the NCAA are getting rich on the back of college athletes is a myth as is the idea that sports programs are vital to school funding. They're really mostly vital to funding the sports programs.

That said, as I suggested before, if college athletes want to destroy themselves, I'm happy to sit back and watch. They could afford to be taken down a peg.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
curran12 wrote:
It is a dicey issue.

On the one hand, i don't believe that a student athlete should be so owned by their college that they are forbidden from reaping the benefits of their accomplishments and fame. On the other, I wonder how a system of paying student athletes would work.

As Ensis pointed out, it is not a simple thing as most student athletes do not have time for a job or anything to compare income with. So I'm not 100% sure this is the right way, either.

Need to think on it.

Given that these athletes aren't paying a penny for their $60,000+ college educations, it is not like they aren't being compensated.

nsidering their educations are often

and a pure smokescreen, I'd say that lacks merit.

**trexmeyer**

djones520 wrote:
curran12 wrote:
It is a dicey issue.

On the one hand, i don't believe that a student athlete should be so owned by their college that they are forbidden from reaping the benefits of their accomplishments and fame. On the other, I wonder how a system of paying student athletes would work.

As Ensis pointed out, it is not a simple thing as most student athletes do not have time for a job or anything to compare income with. So I'm not 100% sure this is the right way, either.

Need to think on it.

Given that these athletes aren't paying a penny for their $60,000+ college educations, it is not like they aren't being compensated.

That's not even a factor. Colleges are raking in stupid amounts of money from their football and basketball programs. The worst part of this guaranteed draft picks to the NFL or NBA are forced to spend time at college. Well, in the case of the NBA they can go overseas. That's not really an option for football players.

**whembly**

Eh... couple lines of thoughts.

A) NCAA basketball/football is big business. Maybe it's time to treat the players as professionals as well. (or at least give each players equal $x stipends)

B) The costs of schools is a fething joke.

C) Referring to A, does anyone really believe that in a big football town, that the "student" of student-athlete is really emphasized?

**d-usa**

This case does raise some good points though.

Should student athletes get paid? That's still debatable.

Should student athletes loose all rights to their own likeness and name? That goes a bit far into the other extreme.

Universities can still be able to "pay" people via scholarships. But maybe "John Smith - University of State Wide Receiver" should also be able to spend the off season hanging out at the car dealership signing autographs for extra money.

As we all know, many of these guys will wash out and never make the money as pros. Let them make money now while they can. The university still benefits and the athlete benefits.

Make it an option to the student-athlete: say that they can claim their share of any revenue made from stuff with their name on it and charge for appearances in the off season but also have them lose amateur eligibility for stuff like Olympics if they do.

**nkelsch**

Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
curran12 wrote:
It is a dicey issue.

On the one hand, i don't believe that a student athlete should be so owned by their college that they are forbidden from reaping the benefits of their accomplishments and fame. On the other, I wonder how a system of paying student athletes would work.

As Ensis pointed out, it is not a simple thing as most student athletes do not have time for a job or anything to compare income with. So I'm not 100% sure this is the right way, either.

Need to think on it.

Given that these athletes aren't paying a penny for their $60,000+ college educations, it is not like they aren't being compensated.

nsidering their educations are often and a pure smokescreen, I'd say that lacks merit.

And that the education is not guaranteed. You get hurt, you lose your scholarship and are probably not going to graduate. And coaches are often incentive to burn out athletes because often they do things which do short term gains but long term injuries to students.

I think guaranteed education to a degree and a stipend is the correct solution. If you don't want them to work, then have a level of income so they can focus on practice and school and not have to worry about feeding themselves.

I think they should standardize for all players across schools as well. If they want to be a big billion dollar industry club which no one can enter, then so be it. I am not usually a union person, but someone or some thing needs to be looking out for the health of these college kids who are sacrificing their bodies for millions of dollars and often not even getting an education or ability to support themselves later.

**Bran Dawri**

It may sound silly to you Americans, but what the feth are bescially professional athletes doing in college anyway?

I'm pretty sure that few, if any of them would make it into college based on academic merits, and IMO, that;s not a bad thing, A college is an educational institution, not a sports club.

**nkelsch**

Bran Dawri wrote:
It may sound silly to you Americans, but what the feth are bescially professional athletes doing in college anyway?

I'm pretty sure that few, if any of them would make it into college based on academic merits, and IMO, that;s not a bad thing, A college is an educational institution, not a sports club.

College sports pays the bills for a lot of universities. Universities are addicted to money and 'the system' is all about enslaving the younger generation into debt to prevent them from rising up and killing the rich. This all helps promote that.

**Ahtman**

There have been many opportunities for the schools and NCAA to correct these inequities without it going so far but they were unwilling to make the necessary changes so now it is going to get weird.

**Bran Dawri**

nkelsch wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
It may sound silly to you Americans, but what the feth are bescially professional athletes doing in college anyway?

I'm pretty sure that few, if any of them would make it into college based on academic merits, and IMO, that;s not a bad thing, A college is an educational institution, not a sports club.

College sports pays the bills for a lot of universities. Universities are addicted to money and 'the system' is all about enslaving the younger generation into debt to prevent them from rising up and killing the rich. This all helps promote that.

So, basically, your higher education facilities are so horribly underfunded that they have to (from what I gathered out of the OP) enslave a bunch of athletes to make ends meet? And then the people who are actually there for the education pay through the nose anyway? That's not a healthy situation.

**whembly**

Bran Dawri wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
It may sound silly to you Americans, but what the feth are bescially professional athletes doing in college anyway?

I'm pretty sure that few, if any of them would make it into college based on academic merits, and IMO, that;s not a bad thing, A college is an educational institution, not a sports club.

College sports pays the bills for a lot of universities. Universities are addicted to money and 'the system' is all about enslaving the younger generation into debt to prevent them from rising up and killing the rich. This all helps promote that.

So, basically, your higher education facilities are so horribly underfunded that they have to (from what I gathered out of the OP) enslave a bunch of athletes to make ends meet? And then the people who are actually there for the education pay through the nose anyway? That's not a healthy situation.

Not really...

Higher Education is booming despite NCAA revenues...

It's just extra, fat wads of cash for the institutions.

Familier with the housing market crash a few years ago? Well.. the education bubble is coming.

**nkelsch**

Bran Dawri wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
It may sound silly to you Americans, but what the feth are bescially professional athletes doing in college anyway?

I'm pretty sure that few, if any of them would make it into college based on academic merits, and IMO, that;s not a bad thing, A college is an educational institution, not a sports club.

College sports pays the bills for a lot of universities. Universities are addicted to money and 'the system' is all about enslaving the younger generation into debt to prevent them from rising up and killing the rich. This all helps promote that.

So, basically, your higher education facilities are so horribly underfunded that they have to (from what I gathered out of the OP) enslave a bunch of athletes to make ends meet? And then the people who are actually there for the education pay through the nose anyway? That's not a healthy situation.

Never said it was. I expect a 'stock market crash' in higher education in our lifetime. I don't understand how costs have gone up so much when professors are paid less than public educators and are often less qualified to teach. A lot of undergrad programs are the equivalent of 'self study' and you pay insane amounts to have professors NOT teach you, make you pass a test to validate your self learning.

I don't know where all the money is going or why universities always claim to be underfunded and broke. I would rather see public education taken to the 13th grade and have them handle the money than these corrupt, unqualified universities taking it.

**gorgon**

Only a small minority of athletic departments can even pay their own bills. This article is a year old, but it'll give you the idea.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

Meanwhile, most of the schools in the five largest conferences have annual budgets in the billions. Athletics certainly does not in any way "pay the bills" at most universities.

**dogma**

curran12 wrote:
That assumes all college athletes are all on full-ride scholarships. Which many are not.

I certainly wasn't.

gorgon wrote:

Meanwhile, most of the schools in the five largest conferences have annual budgets in the billions. Athletics certainly does not in any way "pay the bills" at most universities.

However it is still a recruiting aid.

**Ensis Ferrae**

gorgon wrote:

Meanwhile, most of the schools in the five largest conferences have annual budgets in the billions. Athletics certainly does not in any way "pay the bills" at most universities.

I think if you look at athletics as a whole, this is true.... However, if you removed everyone but football/basketball/hockey (in hockey states) those programs tend to generate the funds that fuel the other sports at that school. And as Dogma pointed out, being good in athletics for some schools can draw more students to that school, the same way that certain academic/research programs draw other students (by academic/research I am referring to schools like MIT that are seen as being on the cutting edge of everything)

**Peregrine**

kronk wrote:
They are getting paid. They're getting a $30,000 per year tuition to major universities, plus room and board.

This isn't really accurate. They're getting "tuition", but many athletes (especially the ones who are going to pay professionally) don't take real classes. They just take things like "leisure studies" or "recreation management" or whatever, never attend the class, have their "tutor" write the final paper, and have the coaches make sure any professor that dares to fail them submits a grade change. That's not an education, it's just doing the bare minimum to maintain eligibility and keep up the pretense that these are student-athletes and not just minor-league football/basketball players.

**kronk**

Peregrine wrote:
kronk wrote:
They are getting paid. They're getting a $30,000 per year tuition to major universities, plus room and board.

This isn't really accurate. They're getting "tuition", but many athletes (especially the ones who are going to pay professionally) don't take real classes. They just take things like "leisure studies" or "recreation management" or whatever, never attend the class, have their "tutor" write the final paper, and have the coaches make sure any professor that dares to fail them submits a grade change. That's not an education, it's just doing the bare minimum to maintain eligibility and keep up the pretense that these are student-athletes and not just minor-league football/basketball players.

And that's a shame and completely wasted opportunity.

**guardpiper**

I am all for them being able to make money from autographs and the like, heck, they should get money from the madden NCAA video games that use their likeness and names. Otherwise I am not sure what should be done to correct the situation as I was not a student athlete in my college time and I do not know enough about the system to say otherwise.
The one thing I will say is that for those who believe that in the power conferences and sports that these kids do it only for the love of the sport are delusional.