http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../13801277/

Quote:A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA's limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page ruling in favor of a group of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, issued an injunction that will prevent the NCAA the "from enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from offering their FBS football or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid."

Wilken said the injunction will not be stayed pending any appeal of her ruling, but it will not take effect until the start of the next FBS football and Division I basketball recruiting cycle

Well, then. Let the paying of players begin.

2014 the beginning of the end.

Quote:She wrote that the injunction also will prohibit the NCAA from enforcing any rules that would prevent schools and conferences from "offering to deposit a limited share of licensing revenue in trust for their FBS football and Division I basketball recruits, payable when they leave school or their eligibility expires."

The injunction will allow the NCAA to set a cap on the amount of money that may be held in trust, but it will not be allowed the set that cap at less than $5,000 in 2014 dollars for every year an athlete remains academically eligible to compete.

(08-08-2014 05:53 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../13801277/

Quote:A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA's limits on what major college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page ruling in favor of a group of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, issued an injunction that will prevent the NCAA the "from enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from offering their FBS football or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid."

Wilken said the injunction will not be stayed pending any appeal of her ruling, but it will not take effect until the start of the next FBS football and Division I basketball recruiting cycle

Well, then. Let the paying of players begin.

It will get stayed instantly at the appeals level.

It will be interesting to see the detail of what she actually ruled. There's a really broad range of possible "wins" for the plaintiffs.

(08-08-2014 06:03 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:She wrote that the injunction also will prohibit the NCAA from enforcing any rules that would prevent schools and conferences from "offering to deposit a limited share of licensing revenue in trust for their FBS football and Division I basketball recruits, payable when they leave school or their eligibility expires."

The injunction will allow the NCAA to set a cap on the amount of money that may be held in trust, but it will not be allowed the set that cap at less than $5,000 in 2014 dollars for every year an athlete remains academically eligible to compete.

That looks like a big fat win for the P5!

I could be reading it wrong but it looks like the money would be capped at 5,000 per year & put into a trust payable after graduation or after using all eligibility .

Can we get EA sports NCAA football franchise back?

Quote:Jay Bilas
‏@JayBilas

Overview of O'Bannon v. NCAA ruling by Jon Solomon: http://cbsprt.co/1kPEU5i Just step one. NCAA faces bigger threat from Jeffrey Kessler.

https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/497891177015033857

(08-08-2014 06:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Jay Bilas
‏@JayBilas

Overview of O'Bannon v. NCAA ruling by Jon Solomon: http://cbsprt.co/1kPEU5i Just step one. NCAA faces bigger threat from Jeffrey Kessler.

https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/497891177015033857

Im not that worried about Kessler. I think limits on the number of scholarship athletes is much easier to defend in a league setting than capping the value of a scholarship (especially when the cap is below the full cost of attendance and there are limits preventing the athletes from earning money off unrelated ventures).

(08-08-2014 07:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Jay Bilas
‏@JayBilas

Overview of O'Bannon v. NCAA ruling by Jon Solomon: http://cbsprt.co/1kPEU5i Just step one. NCAA faces bigger threat from Jeffrey Kessler.

https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/497891177015033857

Im not that worried about Kessler. I think limits on the number of scholarship athletes is much easier to defend in a league setting than capping the value of a scholarship (especially when the cap is below the full cost of attendance and there are limits preventing the athletes from earning money off unrelated ventures).

I'm not sure that's the threat Kessler represents. For those who aren't familiar with this case, he is not a plaintiff. He is the attorney pressing an aggressive antitrust case. Essentially, he is arguing that there should be no limit to how much an athlete can negotiate from his school. Not just up to full cost of attendance. No limit. Total free agency. And that any collusion on the part of schools or conferences to place limits on that compensation would be an antitrust violation subject to treble damages.

The implication of such an injunction would be to totally strip away any claim that schools could make that football and basketball are amateur activities. And it is that claim, and the presumption that it is a valid claim, that is the sine qua non for the IRS to accept that college sports are, in fact, activities that are an integral part of their tax exempt mission and not unrelated business activities. The law expressly requires that college sports be amateur to qualify for protected treatment. Once you go past full cost of attendance you go directly into fully taxable compensation.

That's why Bilas says this is the bigger threat. The only remedy the NCAA and its members would have is to invite (beg, actually) congress to legislate a specific exemption from antitrust statutes. And you know that would only come at an enormous, maybe untenable cost.

The NCAA will appeal and the litigation will go on.

(08-08-2014 08:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 07:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Jay Bilas
‏@JayBilas

Overview of O'Bannon v. NCAA ruling by Jon Solomon: http://cbsprt.co/1kPEU5i Just step one. NCAA faces bigger threat from Jeffrey Kessler.

https://twitter.com/JayBilas/status/497891177015033857

Im not that worried about Kessler. I think limits on the number of scholarship athletes is much easier to defend in a league setting than capping the value of a scholarship (especially when the cap is below the full cost of attendance and there are limits preventing the athletes from earning money off unrelated ventures).

I'm not sure that's the threat Kessler represents. For those who aren't familiar with this case, he is not a plaintiff. He is the attorney pressing an aggressive antitrust case. Essentially, he is arguing that there should be no limit to how much an athlete can negotiate from his school. Not just up to full cost of attendance. No limit. Total free agency. And that any collusion on the part of schools or conferences to place limits on that compensation would be an antitrust violation subject to treble damages.

The implication of such an injunction would be to totally strip away any claim that schools could make that football and basketball are amateur activities. And it is that claim, and the presumption that it is a valid claim, that is the sine qua non for the IRS to accept that college sports are, in fact, activities that are an integral part of their tax exempt mission and not unrelated business activities. The law expressly requires that college sports be amateur to qualify for protected treatment. Once you go past full cost of attendance you go directly into fully taxable compensation.

That's why Bilas says this is the bigger threat. The only remedy the NCAA and its members would have is to invite (beg, actually) congress to legislate a specific exemption from antitrust statutes. And you know that would only come at an enormous, maybe untenable cost.

Good points. Though, it might be easier for the schools to get congress to tweak the tax laws to shield their sports revenue from taxation than to get the antitrust laws changed.

(08-08-2014 06:41 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Can we get EA sports NCAA football franchise back?

Really wish 2k sports would get the license but yes, we need a video game

http://csnbbs.com/thread-697833.html

The WKU guy here has some interesting thoughts on this...

I found this on another Thread made sense:

Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

The more I think on this, the more I think it's much ado about nothing honestly. Let's face it, schools as well as the NCAA were doing some pretty blatant things to capitalize off of players. Selling jerseys with the star players' numbers, using their likeness in games all even though "technically" they didn't use names...c'mon, everyone in Louisville knows who QB #5 is for example. I think what you'll see is the ending of that kind of thing but that's about it really. The rest will be made up through the autonomy vote with the full cost deal getting voted through eventually. If schools went to selling a generic jersey number (say 14 since it's 2014 and so on and so forth, or a simple #1) and the games were to use generics as well, then there's no way you can say a school is profiting from a player's likeness and thus there'd be no money the school would be obligated to share with the player in that regard. And if you MUST compensate a player, then I love the idea of the trust fund someone else mentioned in this thread.

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

Considering the other cases coming, including the Kessler case which is specifically aimed at removing the "cap" on the revenue players can receive, they'd be foolish not to. The whole case was set up in this trial for an appeal.

One thing to consider here is that while the judge's order isn't stayed upon appeal, it does not apply to any player enrolled prior to July 1, 2016. That gives plenty of time for an appeal to be staged and a stay to be issued by the appellate court.

(08-09-2014 06:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2014 02:12 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Judge rules against NCAA, but...

"Wilken's ruling said the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of new compensation that FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap will not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes' cost of attending school. (It is widely acknowledged that the NCAA's current version of a scholarship — which basically comprises tuition, room, board, books and manadatory fees — does not cover costs of attendance like transportation and various incidental expenses.)"



So does all this do is make it so that the players truly have to be given a free ride? That's nice, but doesn't really seem like a fundamental change.

Also, I found this very ironic, given that this is supposed to be a victory for student athletes:

"Allowing student-athletes to endorse commercial products would undermine the efforts of both the NCAA and its member schools to protect against the 'commercial exploitation' of student-athletes," she wrote."


The student athletes are so lucky to be protected from being exploited by companies looking to pay them money for doing what they're already doing. I really don't see how she could write that with a straight face...

I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.

For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.

And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.

If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.

This reminds me a bit of the court "victory" of the USFL in the mid Eighties.

It is more significant and better than that three dollar award, but I don't see this decision "fundamentally altering college football as we know it" at all.