Ninth Circuit Affirms in Part and Reverses in Part O'Bannon Ruling

Submitted by My name ... is Tim on

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/sports/obannon-ncaa-case-court-of-app…

Haven't had a chance to MGoLawyer this thing yet, but figured I would pass this along for those interested. In essence, it appears to uphold the cost of attendance standard and the decision that the NCAA is not above Sherman antitrust laws, but rejected the lower court's ruling that the NCAA provide $5,000/year in deferred compensation to athletes.

Anybody have a link to a copy of the decision?

DCGrad

September 30th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^

In Antitrust law right now, this isn't the first time the NCAA has lost a Sherman Case and I'm sure it won't be the last. When it comes to paying athletes, wouldn't capping the payments be an unreasonable restraint and leading to schools just buying athletes. Not doubt that Denard Robinson was/is worth millions to UM but could we promise to pay an athlete who signed here (Rashan Gary) more than say Auburn because his jersey sales would be worth more at UM than Auburn?

Dubs

September 30th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

If your thoughts about jersey sales become the norm, Ohio State is going to clean house.  You cannot watch a game in which they pan to the crowd and not see at least a James Laurinaitis, Beanie Wells, or AJ Hawk jersey (I'll give Eddie George a pass, as he did win the Heisman).  By 2025, I'll be laughing at the amount of #2 and #5 jerseys in the crowd.

They love themselves some jerseys here in Columbus.

Wolverine In Exile

September 30th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^

So if my non-Law school mind grasps what you said and what I read in the links, the 9th Circuit said:

- NCAA is not exempt for Sherman anti-trust, so they can be sued for anti-competition damages, (essence of OBannon's legal standing, right?)

- Cost of attendance can be used as a standard for compensation to athletes on scholarship

- Lower court should not have prescribed a specific dollar amount?

MichiganTeacher

September 30th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^

Burn it down.

(NB I don't think that would be the end of college football or even close to it, but I do understand that others feel it would.)

Tater

September 30th, 2015 at 1:01 PM ^

Bosworth came off as an ignorant redneck when he called the NCAA "National Communists Against Athletes," but he had one thing right: the NCAA is definitely "against athletes."  Their entire mission is to preserve a free labor force while funneling any compensation from outside sources that athletes might receive back to the schools.

Death to the NCAA.  

In reply to by MichiganTeacher

Yeoman

September 30th, 2015 at 6:53 PM ^

Are you suggesting that the schools be forced to field athletic teams without some sort of overarching association? Or you want to destroy the existing association and then let them form a new one?

The NCAA is what it is because it's what the member institutions want. Burn it down, they'll make a new one.

drzoidburg

September 30th, 2015 at 8:23 PM ^

yeah but a court-mandated all out bidder's war on recruiting would render the ncaa unrecognizable and, aside from academic fraud, pretty much impotent. don't think those 30 workers at indy won't try to desperately cling to their jobs and the non P5 teams either. I shudder to think what this will do to the basketball tourney

Yeoman

September 30th, 2015 at 8:45 PM ^

I think there's a common misperception that those "thirty workers in Indy" are somehow in conflict with the member institutions. It's pretty obvious to me, sometimes painfully so, that they aren't.

I don't think their jobs are at risk, either. Whatever eventually happens with the 30-50 schools willing to go pro if forced, the other thousand member institutions are going to continue to have intercollegiate athletics and they're going to want to have some structure in place to administer it. The money wouldn't be there to support salaries at the high end, but the staffers would continue on.

Inuyesta

September 30th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^

God, what a frustrating ruling.  The idea that amateurism is a legitimate procompetitive purpose because it increases consumer demand is insanity.  Is there anyone in the world that stopped watching the Olympics after they dropped their amateurism requirements?  Is there anyone who watches Deveon Smith magically teleport through a pile or Amara Darboh make an incredible one-handed grab and thinks, "Thank God those guys aren't being paid to do these things, or else I wouldn't enjoy watching them"?

Yeoman

September 30th, 2015 at 8:52 PM ^

How many people here watched Tate Forcier do his thing in the Professional Spring American Football League?

Put him in the school colors and millions will watch; put him on a high school field in suburban LA and you get about 50 people in the stands. There is no market for minor league football in this country, once you take away the connection fans and alums have with a particular school and tradition.

Inuyesta

October 1st, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^

Obviously that's correct, but no one is talking about "taking away the connection fans and alums have with a particular school and tradition." If the players are students at the University of Michigan, wearing the maize and blue, wearing the winged helmet, and playing in Michigan Stadium for the University of Michigan football team, who would possibly feel that their connection as alums and fans would be destroyed simply because the players were also able to sell the rights to their likeness to EA, or get a check from the university for their 50+ hours a week of highly valuable labor?

Yeoman

October 1st, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^

To take an extreme outcome that's not entirely out of the realm of eventual possibility, what would happen if the players were no longer students, but paid employees of the University? Some of us are talking about doing away with the unit responsible for enforcing the regulations requiring that players be students, after all.

My guess is that you're right and the majority of people still wouldn't care. The brand is the brand. But I also suspect that only a small number of schools would be willing to go this route, and the other 1200+ NCAA schools would cut the cord and let them go their separate way instead of trying to compete with them.

MGoSoftball

September 30th, 2015 at 8:35 PM ^

with this ruling.  The full cost of attendence is reasonable.  Get the kids a winter jacket, hat and gloves.  Pick up their cell phone bill and buy them a pizza on Friday night.

However, if players want to make money playing football, basketball, softball or swimming; then feel free to leave college and become a professional.

It is just that easy for me.

Yeoman

September 30th, 2015 at 9:05 PM ^

...was the Clarett case. I understand that in football there are health concerns that might justify some restrictions, but it opened the door for collusion between the professional leagues and the schools in all-out restraint of trade.

Honk if Ufer M…

October 2nd, 2015 at 8:06 AM ^

That's fine softball as long as the coaches and administrators will do their jobs as volunteers and not be paid and as long as there is no advertising during radio and TV broadcasts. I completely agree with everyone doing it for free if they all want to. However if there's money to be made the bulk of it needs to go to those who do the work, draw the fans, and risk thier lives doing it.

Also, under your idea players need to be able to play pro at any age.