Judge releases ruling on O'Bannon case: NCAA loses

[HuskyHawk]

If the athletes own their likeness, then the players get a cut of the TV pie. Schools will have to set aside $5k per player per year for TV.

Disagree. That doesn't even happen in pro sports. Broadcasting the games is not using their likeness. Using their names or images in a game, advertisement, on a jersey sold at the Co-op, those would be licensed uses of their likeness. This all came out of the EA sports games.

 

[upstater]

Disagree. That doesn't even happen in pro sports. Broadcasting the games is not using their likeness. Using their names or images in a game, advertisement, on a jersey sold at the Co-op, those would be licensed uses of their likeness. This all came out of the EA sports games.

The judge expressly wrote that it is using their likeness.

And in pro sports, the players are paid. In fact, in football, for instance, the players' take is 50% of the TV contract. That's how they determine salary cap.

 

[Sea Goat]

NCAA will appeal O’Bannon ruling

Statement from Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer

We remain confident that the NCAA has not violated the antitrust laws and intend to appeal. We will also be seeking clarity from the District Court on some details of its ruling.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/press-releases/ncaa-will-appeal-o’bannon-ruling[URL='https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/press-releases/ncaa-will-appeal-o’bannon-ruling[/QUOTE'][/QUOTE[/URL]]


Sure the NCAA will appeal - what else can it do?

Emmert and his merry pranksters have to attempt to preserve their $1mm - $2mm jobs. Speaking of which - what the do they do?

 

[The Funster]

Who's to say that 5k limit won't be challenged? Someone is going to say that they represent a pool of players that should get more and they'll fight for collective bargaining rights for the elite college athletes

 

[HuskyHawk]

The judge expressly wrote that it is using their likeness.

And in pro sports, the players are paid. In fact, in football, for instance, the players' take is 50% of the TV contract. That's how they determine salary cap.

Then she is wrong, I'll read the whole 99 pages and see for myself. Playing the game is what the players are paid for, pro and college (via scholarship). Use of a likeness is different, and relates to merchandising. Pro players sell group licenses via the union, and also make money independently (Jordan's logo and brand, Tom Brady's TB, commercials). It should affect a small percentage of college athletes who have sufficient branding capability and name recognition. Manziel most recently, but lots of others before him (remember Brian Bosworth?). UConn couldn't sell a UConn jersey with "Napier" on the back without paying. However, the NCAA already sold group merchandising rights to the TV networks and to game makers.

From ESPN.
"The compensation will be paid into a trust fund. However, if a school does not try to sell anything with the players' names, images and likenesses, there will be no money to pay into the trust fund. A player then would be limited to his cost-of-attendance scholarship."

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I wholly disagree. Anyone around athletics knows that the NLRB made absolutely the right decision. Athletes are not tied to their academic credentials. Flat out they are told what classes to take by their coaches/advisers in many cases and their academic schedules & credentials are tailored to athletics. The NLRB flat out got it right. They have no business being treated, legally, as if athletics has anything to do with the academic mission. It simply does not.

With all due respect, the Chronicle of Higher Ed is probably living in the same fantasy land these school presidents are living. They simply are in a Utopian Society and have no clue about how the day to day operations are being run. They do not have their finger on the pulse with the legal aspect nor the reality.

if What you say is true , than the University is nothing more than the sponsor of a club , divorced from their academic mission. And all athletes are incapable of being real students.
Logic would tell you why bother to waste scholarship money on athletes who take up valuable classroom space pretending to actually be students. Hire them as employees. If they are capable and choose to attend classes that would reduce their compensation.While your at it if they are employee why limit their term of employment to 4 years . That's silly
Term limits are normally reserved for elected officials
Also if there are employees, why can't you fire them for non- performance.
That would be great ,a loosing season ,replace them all, why not trade them ,we're deep a one position lets send this guy to somewhere that needs him for someone we need.
If you say it's a professional league sponsored by a Schools why pretend the team has a relationship with the academic mission of the school.
Do you think that's appealing
The presidents maybe naive but I don 't think any of them aspire to run a professional football club. As ridicules as my arguments are,
They are the logical conclusion to the course we're on.

 

[kyleslamb]

if What you say is true , than the University is nothing more than the sponsor of a club , divorced from their academic mission. And all athletes are incapable of being real students.
Logic would tell you why bother to waste scholarship money on athletes who take up valuable classroom space pretending to actually be students. Hire them as employees. If they are capable and choose to attend classes that would reduce their compensation.While your at it if they are employee why limit their term of employment to 4 years . That's silly
Term limits are normally reserved for elected officials
Also if there are employees, why can't you fire them for non- performance.
That would be great ,a loosing season ,replace them all, why not trade them ,we're deep a one position lets send this guy to somewhere that needs him for someone we need.
If you say it's a professional league sponsored by a Schools why pretend the team has a relationship with the academic mission of the school.
Do you think that's appealing
The presidents maybe naive but I don 't think any of them aspire to run a professional football club. As ridicules as my arguments are,
They are the logical conclusion to the course we're on.

I don't think there's a problem treating them as students, as they are. However, their actual role as athletes are not and have not been heavily dependent on the educational mission for quite sometime. To me, the scholarship aspect is one reason why I think it's obvious that their mission isn't largely predicated on their academic status: since scholarships are most often subsidized in part or full by third party boosters. If the schools were simply giving a tuition free education to athletes, that would be one thing... but they aren't. They're still getting their money from the athletic departments.

 

[upstater]

I don't think there's a problem treating them as students, as they are. However, their actual role as athletes are not and have not been heavily dependent on the educational mission for quite sometime. To me, the scholarship aspect is one reason why I think it's obvious that their mission isn't largely predicated on their academic status: since scholarships are most often subsidized in part or full by third party boosters. If the schools were simply giving a tuition free education to athletes, that would be one thing... but they aren't. They're still getting their money from the athletic departments.

This is how universities work in general. Funding is sourced from the programs themselves. I don't see any difference.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I don't think there's a problem treating them as students, as they are. However, their actual role as athletes are not and have not been heavily dependent on the educational mission for quite sometime. To me, the scholarship aspect is one reason why I think it's obvious that their mission isn't largely predicated on their academic status: since scholarships are most often subsidized in part or full by third party boosters. If the schools were simply giving a tuition free education to athletes, that would be one thing... but they aren't. They're still getting their money from the athletic departments.

My point was its a slippery slope from where we are headed to professionalism.
Without oversight by an entity that actually cares about their real future the ultimate loser will be the athlete. Less than 10% will actually make money playing the sport.
I will admit as a college fan since the Days of Howard Hopalong Cassidy, my view that the college sport should actually be played by students is a little romantic.
That kids then use their gifts to receive an education,that will ultimatly improve their financial status may also be dated.
Growing up in Ct when Yale football still meant something .I knew that for financial reasons I wouldn't be going there.
I also knew that if my football skills were good enough and my Acedemic's acceptable. Not only could I go there but get financial help based on need.
Football was my only shot at that type of education. But it was the education that was the end and football just the means. When we lose that model, is there really any need for athletics at a University?

 

[pj]

I am not sure appealing this is a smart move to Mr. Emmert and the NCAA. I thought the ruling did them a favor by applying an arbitrary cap. The next judge may not be so flexible and blow it up resulting in no cap and free agency coming to the NCAA. Just look at all of the contrasting judicial findings in US healthcare reform.

This justice's ruling is not binding in any other jurisdiction. The cap has no legal basis, so it would undoubtedly be rejected by other judges. The finding that the NCAA is violating antitrust law opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits, since any collaboration between colleges to market their sports and retain profits from it could be alleged to be an antitrust violation; yet you need collaboration in order to create a saleable product.

The NCAA has to appeal, the potential gains from appeal are far greater than the potential costs.

 

[kyleslamb]

This is how universities work in general. Funding is sourced from the programs themselves. I don't see any difference.

Yet the programs themselves are all reported under the same university umbrella for tax purposes and as part of the ipeds reporting but the athletics income is reported as a separate auxiliary income, unlike those programs you speak of. There's a reason for the distinction.

 

[upstater]

Yet the programs themselves are all reported under the same university umbrella for tax purposes and as part of the ipeds reporting but the athletics income is reported as a separate auxiliary income, unlike those programs you speak of. There's a reason for the distinction.

Not so. While the privates don't have to report anything, the publics cordon off revenue/expenditure info in a variety of ways, usually through foundations. The general budget is separate from the foundations, and in many states, the foundations income/expenditures isn't even public information. Schools breakdown budgets in a variety of ways. The AD is not the only one reported separately (per federal guidelines, they are forced to report). In any university budget, the AD will be included under the total school budget. It isn't separate.

 

[TRest]

This justice's ruling is not binding in any other jurisdiction. The cap has no legal basis, so it would undoubtedly be rejected by other judges. The finding that the NCAA is violating antitrust law opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits, since any collaboration between colleges to market their sports and retain profits from it could be alleged to be an antitrust violation; yet you need collaboration in order to create a saleable product.

The NCAA has to appeal, the potential gains from appeal are far greater than the potential costs.

For lack of a place to put this, here's a pretty decent breakdown of how the $5,000 was arrived at by the judge. The most interesting statement was that if this decision held up it would be binding on all Division 1 programs to pay full cost of attendance. Which would effectively force a lot of the bottom of Division 1 out the door.

http://deadspin.com/in-the-obannon-decision-truth-wins-out-over-rhetoric-1619025997