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 12:26 PM ^
That example applies to small amount of athletes. Those athletes are usually the ones going pro. Those athletes are usually the ones that have their draft stock sky rocket because college sports allows them to build a brand. That allows them to be drafted higher than a talented athlete without a brand because of the school they attend. Draft position = $.
Heres the simple solution... No age restriction on turning pro in any sport.
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.
1) Lots of folks LEGALLY profit off the likeness of a person without compensating them - it's just a matter of what folks will sign away in a contract. Record label contracts are notorious for this.
John Fogerty quit playing CCR tunes that he wrote - because anytime he played them he had to cut a royalty to check to the record comapny that owned them.
2) The player ARE compensated
3) The NCAA does not force anyone to sign away their likeness rights, that is a choice of the player.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The Big House selling out during putrid Rich Rod seasons shows that the value is driven by Michigan, not the players they field.
Maybe the Big House was selling out during the RR era because of Denard. There was empty seats during the Hoke era because we played boring football and there was no Denard on the team.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:17 AM ^
Actually, I have little idea how this will ultimately affect the video game but a VERY rough guess. If I were counsel at Michigan, Duke, OSU, etc., I would still be advising that we stay away from a licensing deal with EA Sports. While this case may now die, there are more (Kessler's in particular) behind it. Many of these cases turn not just on the dry law but, as in public opinion, on the atmospherics.
The elite institutions make more than enough in other revenue sources. Why invite a very volitile and probably relatively minor one?
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
It is a difficult and complicated subject. I actually think the mistake is to focus on paying athletes (lessen our guilt without doing right by them) rather than actually making their deal real (an education that recognizes their excellence at sports as A PART of their education).
The author of the article Joe Nocera and I had a long debate about this at the New York Public Library that can be found here for the interested: http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/price-play-discussion-about-ncaa-and-its….
And hey, before you neg away, follow me on twitter... there, I said it. (@ekownyankah)
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^
OP, I agree with you on all points except the final sentence. I can't see SCOTUS taking this case, and yeah, that's a big victory for the NCAA.
I can't see why anyone would agree with the ruling, though, unless by 'agree' you mean that it's legal but not just. Cartman's CBAA is real.
The number of people who complain about Emmert, Sankey, Delany etc. on this blog is huge - but then in threads like this there are always a bunch of people supporting the NCAA. If you agree that the NCAA is up there with FIFA and the IOC in corruption - why wouldn't you want to burn it to the ground? There wouldn't be any collegiate sport vaccum. The schools would still play, and the whole atmosphere would be immeasurably better.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
It is a quite a hyperbole to equate NCAA to FIFA. Nobody is accusing NCAA officials of taking bribes and having secret bank accounts with millions in them.
I completely agree that colleges should be free to strive for amateurism in sports that they support. They are completely within their rights to do so. The courts have ruled as so. I don't think that is radical decision.
There is nothing stopping college athletes who believe that they are being taken advantage of to quit and become a pro. The fact that there are collective bargains in pro sports to preclude you from doing that is not the college's fault. If you want to get paid, go pro, good luck, nobody is stopping you (from the college side). Courts have already also ruled that such collective rights bargains are perfectly legal.
In fact, if you look at a sport with no such restrictions, baseball, there are still healthy number of players who choose to go to college instead of turning pro. That tells me that players are compensated just fine. If there was money to be made getting college age kids to play in their own league, NFL and NBA would have mined that a long time ago. They don't do it because there is no money there.
If you agree that the NCAA is up there with FIFA and the IOC in corruption - why wouldn't you want to burn it to the ground?
Anyone who agrees with that is fundamentally stupid.
The NCAA is functionally a trade organization comprised of its member institutions.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:47 AM ^
I've made before to my friends that say athletes should be "employees": Would you like to see Tim Tebow be the Quarterback at Florida for 15 years? Troy Smith back at OSU running the show? When they become "employees," you can't discriminate because of age, so I hope everyone that's advocating for this relaizes you could have players that can't hack it in the NFL staying at the college level for their whole career.
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
Not under center. I like the 4 years of elgibility rule, personally. I think college sports would lose their luster without. There would be no signing day for MGoBlog to crash on :P
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^
Only apply to those over 40. They're meant to protect older workers from being fired in favor of younger, and cheaper, workers.
You can fire a 22 year old for being a 22 year old and legally you're in the clear, unless there's an employment contract.
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^
No one would deny that such an admission would change things drastically - but "we dont want things to change" isn't an argument that someting is currently just.
*edit - hatter beat me to the punch*
The ADA doesn't prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of their age if they are under the age of 40.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^
March 23rd, 2016 at 12:34 PM ^
ya you are weirdo
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
July is just not the same without a new NCAA Football game.
