OT: O'Bannon Case goes to the Judge.

[Kibitzer]

This is the case that may change college sports as we have come to know them.

Former UCLA player Ed O'Bannon and several others (including Oscar Robertson) sued the NCAA about five years ago, seeking money from the NCAA for use of the names, images and likenesses of college athletes. The plaintiffs themselves waived money for themselves. The court hearing took five weeks, a ruling is expected in August, and both sides are certain to appeal any unfavorable ruling.

For now we are speculating how Judge Wilken will rule, based on what we read from journalists who have followed the proceedings closely. (The coverage by SI has been especially detailed and informative.) Here's how it looks to them:

It appears to be very possible, if not likely, that the NCAA will have to cough up some dough for selling memorabilia, jerseys, and other detritus. This could be done by establishing some sort of an escrow account in the name of individual athletes, the money collectible upon graduation of leaving college (e.g., for the NFL or NBA). Texas A&M sold a huge batch of Manziel jerseys at about $15 per. Consider for a moment what a bonanza Skylar would have reaped when she graduated from ND -- or the potential for Stewie jerseys sold while she is at UConn.

Any disbursement of funds for use of names, images or likenesses of athletes during live TV or radio broadcasts of games seems to be highly problematical if now downright impossible. The NCAA argument that people tune in to watch teams compete (and mention of names of participants is incidental) seems likely to hold up.

The testimony by NCAA witnesses (including Mark Emmert) was reportedly often flawed and unpersuasive. One (SI legal analyst) summed it up by using what is apparently a suitable adage:

"Frequently wrong but never in doubt."​

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

This is the case that may change college sports as we have come to know them.

Any disbursement of funds for use of names, images or likenesses of athletes during live TV or radio broadcasts of games seems to be highly problematical if now downright impossible. The NCAA argument that people tune in to watch teams compete (and mention of names of participants is incidental) seems likely to hold up.

​

​

Hopefully. This is much more related to a pay for play issue than a specific payment for use of a likeness. And after all, does the bench warmer that gets shown and mentioned by announcers get a smaller percentage than what the star that touched the ball on 43% of all plays gets?

There are merits to a lot of arguments related to college athletics, but this specific nuance doesn't impress me.

 

[Kibitzer]

​

Hopefully. This is much more related to a pay for play issue than a specific payment for use of a likeness. And after all, does the bench warmer that gets shown and mentioned by announcers get a smaller percentage than what the star that touched the ball on 43% of all plays gets?

There are merits to a lot of arguments related to college athletics, but this specific nuance doesn't impress me.

As I tried to state, some method of providing payments for use of athletes' names, images or likenesses on video games, jerseys, cards, etc., seems manageable and fair. And the NCAA seems resigned to the inevitability of this being imposed.

Conversely, I see no way that restrictions of any kind can be managed regarding use of players' names, etc., on live telecasts of intercollegiate games.

My opinion doesn't count. Nor does that of Mark Emmert. For now, Judge Claudia Wilkins is the ref. . . subject, of course, to further review.