NYT: O'Bannon case at SCOTUS
I know this is a cause celebre around here, but many of you probably have forgotten that the case is now at Supreme Court. I personally do not believe they will choose to hear this case especilly with one judge missing. This will leave lower court rulings as is.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/sports/ed-obannon-lawsuit-ncaa-tou…
What many of you may not realize is that, that would be a huge victory for NCAA. I know Brian made it sound like this case will finally break NCAA, but in actuality, while the case proved NCAA is violating Anti-Trust Act, the judges ruled what NCAA is doing is perfectly fine in the quest for amateurism.
For the record I agree with the rulings so far, and it means NCAA will continue as is.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:49 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^
I second that! So much more enjoyable than the various professional team based video games.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
This just happened this week.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^
While the lower court's decision stands, the issue would still be ripe for a SCOTUS challenge after the ninth Justice is confirmed, would it not?
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^
If the Court goes 4-4, the case is over. It would take another challenge that would then have to make its way up to the Court.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^
So be it, but the issue is still ripe for review. Scalia's death and the vacancy on the Court is just a temporary impediment that several other cases, including the scope of authority of presidential EO's and EA's, will share the same fate. FWIW, the vast majority of SCOTUS decisions are not 5-4. Check out the bottom of this link from Scotusblog, a great place to follow Supreme Court cases without the political banter that is so common just about everywhere else.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:43 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^
There is no difference in the specific ruling for the case where the justices went 4-4, but it does not set a precedent in case law that others need to follow, so the lower court ruling is upheld, but another court can rule a different way for a similar case. There needs to be a true majority opinion before lower courts have a clear precedent on how to rule on a specific set of circumstances.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
rock, scissors.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
If SCOTUS has a 4-4 tie, then the prior ruling is automatically upheld.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
My understanding is that a tie vote upholds the ruling of the lower courts. I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
If the vote is 4-4, the decision of the lower court is upheld and no precedent is set. They could also choose to delay hearing the case. Most cases don't end in a 4-4 ruling, so I suspect that this will be heard and there probably won't be an issue.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
It's deferred to the lower court's decision.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^
It's really unlikely that the case will be head on the merits; fewer than 1% of petititons to the SC are actually heard especially where, as here, there is no disagreement (yet) among the lower courts.
As to the actual question, if it's 4-4, the lower court ruling stands in this particular case, but there's no precedent set that any future court would have to follow. It's as if they never heard the case at all.
The media overblows the lack of a ninth justice in cases such as this one, which do not implicate controversial political issues. There is no reason to think the four so called liberals and four so called conservatives would not in fact diverge from their "group-think" on an issue like this. Of course, maybe 1% of all petitions for review are granted by the Court, so it's a long shot this gets reveiwed at all.
March 23rd, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
The Court already declined to hear the case though there are related cases in the pipeline
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:19 PM ^
It is probably status quo. EA is free to get college licensing, but it would be almost impossible to get licensing from players. So no game.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:53 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^
The cost of tracking thousands of players down and getting them to sign the agreement is going to be cost prohibitive..
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Even if they did that, I don't think it would matter. I don't remember these games all that well, but the ones I do never included the player names, only their likeness - #16 is a super-fast QB at UM type of thing. So if say 85% of the kids on the team sign up but 15% don't, either EA has to basically create completely random players to fill those spots (which isn't particularly hard but might be jarring) or they could be accussed of making a "generic" QB at UM who ran really fast.
It basically has to all or none with these rulings; either your scholarship gives 100% rights for licensing of your likeness, or nothing.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
I don't understand what the legal ramifications are if you create an NCAA game with all the schools, but each player is auto-generated by the system. As long as the ability to download rosters are available, then it seems you can avoid the issue of players complaining that their likenesses are being used for profit.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:11 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^
they are loaded, and while that game means a lot to you and I, they really don't care. They are going to make their money and don't want to deal with any legal ramifications.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^
I said those same words when I took EECS 183 (back in the dark ages of Pascal). I figured I would build my own games and never buy another video game ever. Obviously didn't work out.
But I assume EA didn't burn all the programming. Reproduce NCAA 14 with some stadium/uniform upgrades (all free) and minor tweaks to Dynasty/Road to Glory, and I could live with that for one year until the fully blown out version is ready.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^
know much about how video games are made and what exactly is possible, but all they would need to do is add the playoff to the existing game, by way of download, patch, etc. That is the only reason I won't buy 2014 now. I am a dynasty player and I have no use for the game without the playoff. The players don't matter as I will be starting "Latrell Isaac," the five star dual threat from San Diego within a week after starting my dynasty. The player names and likenesses don't matter, the playoff does.
Never tried it, but probably will now that I found the link again.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^
But it’s also because it is simply impossible to avert one’s eyes to the billions of dollars pouring into college sports, virtually none of which go to the players.
I know there are plenty of people on this board who do believe that the education is compensation enough, and I understand that, but this part above is the part I can't get past, the money that these players help generate for schools, for networks and for merchandisers, money to which they have zero access at least directly (I realize much of that is invested in the programs for other things, not to mention the other varisty sports which do not generate revenue).
I realize others may not see it this way, but to me that always seemed - to put it tactfully - ungrateful, if nothing else, especially for something which virtually everywhere else would mean more than a pat on the back and some miscellaneous fringe benefits. For the time commitment involved, it always seemed like some compensation was not a such a terrible thing although I am sure someone could think of an alternative if so inclined. Comprehensive scholarships that cover COL expenses and improved health care would be a great improvement, but I always wonder if there is more that could be done even in the realization that many schools (which don't have financially gifted athletic departments) - most of them - would struggle with full scholarships, let alone other items.
Not really wanting to argue the point, but it is merely something which offends my sensibilities.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^
I fully reject the notion that the players have "zero access to billions of dollars." 85 scholarship players per team * 128 FBS teams * $30,000 average value of a scholarship = almost a third of a billion dollars. $326M. $30,000 is an assumption on my part but it's probably a reasonable one.
Plus, 13 * 351 * $30,000 is another $137M. Close to half a billion dollars on just football and men's basketball. The "billions" that pour into college athletics are not just pissed into the wind.
Also, a huge percentage of those billions are spent on things to be specifically used only by the athletes. Stadiums, practice fields, weight rooms, dorms, dining halls, study halls, locker rooms, rec rooms, trainers' rooms.
Horsecrap to say that "virtually none of it" goes to the players. By that I'm sure they mean direct cash compensation. Not buying it.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:43 AM ^
And the remainder is used to support the money-losing sports, who also have scholarships (not as many, but still some), facilities to maintain, and so forth. If you require scholarship athletes to receive a salary, that's likely to mean the end for a lot of non-revenue sports programs, which will no longer be financially viable.
I don't have an objection to full cost-of-living scholarships, improved health care for athletes and so forth (which was more at the crux of the Northwestern union case than actual salaries). But arguments over revenues are often lazily framed as though the money from football/basketball just goes in a giant Scrooge McDuck moneybin.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:05 PM ^
There are more studies looking at the negative impact of playing the same sport throughout the year and it's impact on young, developing bodies. When I played baseball, my dad wouldn't let me throw a curveball until junior year because my arm was "not fully developed".
My niece played basketball in high school (AAU + H.S.) and college. She had maybe two months of free time during the year. The rest of the time was spent in competition. Now she's 29 which arthritic knees and bad ankles.
People can argue about the revenue generating sports, but no one can argue that all college athletes have an incredible amount of demand placed on their bodies. I would probably put post-graduate health care at the top of any list of demands for the athletes.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
That's the number one problem I have with "these players generate so much money and get none of it." If we were to go to compensating players based on how much money they generate, every sport but football and men's basketball (plus maybe a few remaining scattered participants in baseball, men's lacrosse, and men's hockey) will disappear within a generation.
People don't actually want that to happen, they just seem to think that football and basketball players should get paid while everything else should continue as is. Which is a two-faced argument. Football and baskeball subsidize everything else. And that's fine, because there are a thousand different reasons the current NCAA system is better for the sports situation in this country than pure capitalism would be.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^
I wouldn't suggest that everything else would continue as normal - it wouldn't. Some of that change may even be undesireable when taken in isolation.
Should the trickle-down effects affect our judgement vis a vis wether or not something is exploitative?
No, but "exploitative" should not be a word thrown around lightly, especially not for an opportunity that people are free to enter and leave of their own volition at any time and is so highly sought after that anyone who did leave would be easily replaced.
you could say the same of pretty much all the exploitative practices that labor laws are meant to prevent.
I mean, short of outright slavery.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:17 PM ^
Glad I can upvote again just for this post.
I would like to add that the one's who may have a case of not being properly compensated are the superstars. Which make up what? 1% of D1 players? The SCHOOLS more than anything else bring in the revenue
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^
In my opinion, it's not a question of if they're compensated or not. Scholarships have a significant value.
To me, the question is how we can point to their high-dollar-value compensation as evidence that they are not being taken advantage of, and then at the same time insist that their employment should not be subject to anti-trust laws because they are unpaid amateurs, not employees.
If they were admitted to be employees, the NCAA would be operating a highly illegal, wage fixing, and exploitative racket according to anti-trust laws.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^
But the courts already ruled on that. The courts ruled that NCAA violated anti-trust laws. But they can continue to do what they have done because the players are amateurs.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^
right, so it's an amateur sport as long as we're talking about why the players can't have money / contracts / employment rights...
....but it's a professional, fully compensated sport as long as we're asking why people are making dumptrucks of money off of the work of amateurs.
Again, the courts have ruled that colleges are free to pursue amateurism in their sports. You can have any opinion you want, still does not change the fact that college sport is amateur sports endeavor.
I'm not going to get into the argument over how much money athletes have access to; that is always a subjective argument dependent on what you view as required costs for fielding sports generally and what is specific to particular athletes.
All I will say is that I have an issue with schools being limited in how they spend money on athletes. In coaching, staff, equipment, etc., there are no limits on the amount of money you can spend to compensate/purchase beyond how much you have in your bank account; Harbaugh gets a lot of money because people at UM feel he deserves it. And because he's one of the best coaches in the country, he can demand it. The market has spoken, for lack of a better word.
But with athletes, we have this artificial ceiling on how much they can be compensated at, regardless of skill. Denard was immensely more valuable to UM than, say, the 4th DT. But both receive the same basic financial package, just like a female member of the crew team on scholarship and a defensement on the hockey team. Now, I know Title IX restrictions kick in and there is a floor that you have to cover, but if athletes aren't allowed to reap financial benefits from the commercialization of their likenesses, then let them at least compete for the "market" rate of their services while they are doing it. And sure, it would probably create even more disparity between the have and have-nots, but probably not demonstrably worse than what we see now.
"But with athletes, we have this artificial ceiling on how much they can be compensated at, regardless of skill."
No, there isn't.
They ALL have the opportunity to play in pro leagues if they feel that is more financially advantageous.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
I've felt the same thing for a while. Something that always struck me was an atecdote from Chris Webber in (IMS) Mitch Albom's Fab Five book. He was getting lunch and realized he didn't have enough cash to pay for everything, so put some portion of his food back. Literally in the next moment, he looked over to a store selling his jersey for $80, and had this moment of intense frustration that they were profiting off him while he was putting back food he couldn't afford. Not excusing Webber taking money or anything like that, but even as a kid when I first read that book, this struck me as profoundly unfair, to be able to profit off of somebody while they get none of it. I mean, in any other context, under the law, if you profit off the likeness of a person without compensating them, it's a tortious offense and you're liable to them, but because the NCAA forces players to sign their likeness rights away for their time in school, that law doesn't apply. I understand all the risks and problems with playing this out to its extreme, and the "loss of amateurism" argument (while I disagree with that idea, i acknowledge it's a thing), but still...it just feels wrong to me.