Federal appeals court upholds ruling NCAA violates antitrust laws
Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting what athletes can receive while playing sports violate antitrust laws, but the three-judge panel also threw out a plan that would have allowed schools to provide deferred athletes compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdt...view?pli=1

Wait so ... does this mean that, if held up by the supreme court (if it agrees to hear the case), that the total outcome from the O'Bannon lawsuits is ... scholarships are now required to be FCOA scholarships??


That's it? P5 conferences won't have to pay players anything for using their NILs?

(09-30-2015 09:33 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Federal appeals court upholds ruling NCAA violates antitrust laws
Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting what athletes can receive while playing sports violate antitrust laws, but the three-judge panel also threw out a plan that would have allowed schools to provide deferred athletes compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdt...view?pli=1

This should speed up the Power conferences splitting from NCAA. Why should the power conferences continue sharing all their hard earned revenue with the NCAA and all the leech schools, who are not generating much of the revenue .

So being a non-lawyer type, it appears the court said that "NCAA must allow for COA but nothing else" Is that how other people are reading this? If so, really a big win for the NCAA. It reminds of the NFL losing the Antitrust suit to the USFL but then was only to pay the USFL 3 dollars.

(09-30-2015 09:43 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wait so ... does this mean that, if held up by the supreme court (if it agrees to hear the case), that the total outcome from the O'Bannon lawsuits is ... scholarships are now required to be FCOA scholarships??


That's it? P5 conferences won't have to pay players anything for using their NILs?

The scary case is the other one that makes them free agents.

(09-30-2015 09:33 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Federal appeals court upholds ruling NCAA violates antitrust laws
Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting what athletes can receive while playing sports violate antitrust laws, but the three-judge panel also threw out a plan that would have allowed schools to provide deferred athletes compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdt...view?pli=1

Best result they could have hoped for.

(09-30-2015 09:44 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  So being a non-lawyer type, it appears the court said that "NCAA must allow for COA but nothing else" Is that how other people are reading this? If so, really a big win for the NCAA. It reminds of the NFL losing the Antitrust suit to the USFL but then was only to pay the USFL 3 dollars.

That's how I read it.
The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”


So it sounds like nothing is going to change now that COA is in effect.

Next step would be the Supreme Court as that rule of reason is pretty solid that I doubt they waste the effort to have the Supreme Court review it....or if the Supreme Court will even want to hear the case.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../73079962/

Reading it was very helpful.

Quote:The NCAA is facing further legal challenges about its athlete-compensation rules, and Wednesday’s ruling comes one day before Wilken is scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to grant class-action status to a pair of lawsuits that seek to basically prevent the association from having any limit on what schools can offer athletes in football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball.

The case began in the summer of 2009 with a suit filed on behalf of Ed O'Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player. It eventually boiled down to the plaintiffs seeking an injunction that would heavily overhaul the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players can receive for playing sports and for the use of the names, images and likenesses in in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games.

A trial was held in June 2014 and Wilken ruled in August. She found that the NCAA's rules at the time – which basically limited athletes to tuition, room, board, books and fees -- “unreasonably restrain trade” in violation of antitrust laws.

In her ruling, injunction and a subsequent interpretation of the injunction, she said the NCAA would be able to cap the amount of new compensation that the football and men's basketball players can receive while they are in school, but that cap would not be allowed to be an amount that is less than the athletes’ cost of attending school.

In addition, Wilken decided to let schools and conferences deposit money in trust for football and men's basketball players that will become payable when they leave school or their eligibility expires. Under this setup, the NCAA would be allowed to set a cap on the amount of money that may be held in trust, but that cap cannot be less than $5,000 in 2014 dollars -- now about $5,040 -- for every year the athletes remain academically eligible.

The "other challenge" that the article is talking about is the Kessler lawsuit. Basically, two different lawsuits that got combined into one ... and now they're trying to get class action for it.

Basically, if that lawsuit wins out -- it will turn FBS football and DI men's basketball into professional leagues.

I hope these big schools continue to live out their fantasy that they make the money and should be a community unto themselves. Nobody's really bringing in big money with football. They basically come back marginally above budget, if at all, and those that do are so heavily subsidized or funded by other means that, if it came down to monies spent, earned, given, and donated, what's "earned" doesn't even come close to what's "spent." This was the big thing about Michigan's season ticket drop that year or so back...that's the most immediate and direct revenue intake schools have. When it drops, outside sources have to step in: fees, media, boosters...they don't make it on their own.

It isn't glamorous, but basketball really is where genuine money can be made by most involved. I'd love to see football schools renounce that group...because they'll be treading water without them.

(09-30-2015 09:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:44 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  So being a non-lawyer type, it appears the court said that "NCAA must allow for COA but nothing else" Is that how other people are reading this? If so, really a big win for the NCAA. It reminds of the NFL losing the Antitrust suit to the USFL but then was only to pay the USFL 3 dollars.

That's how I read it.
The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”


So it sounds like nothing is going to change now that COA is in effect.

Next step would be the Supreme Court as that rule of reason is pretty solid that I doubt they waste the effort to have the Supreme Court review it....or if the Supreme Court will even want to hear the case.

The entire case was that the NCAA was illegally capping player compensation to be only tuition, fees, books, room and board ... which is less than FCOA.

Now the NCAA says that any DI school can give athletic scholarships that are worth up to FCOA.


So with the NIL part of it cancelled out, it would seem that FCOA now takes care of the lawsuit.

O'Bannon essentially lost on appeal. His whole thing was that he an avatar in a video game that looked much like himself and thought to himself "hey, I never got paid for that".

So while he lost the argument that major NCAA football and bball programs should have to pay athletes for using/selling their NILs, he did still get paid by EA Sports, which settled out of court.

(09-30-2015 09:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I hope these big schools continue to live out their fantasy that they make the money and should be a community unto themselves. Nobody's really bringing in big money with football. They basically come back marginally above budget, if at all, and those that do are so heavily subsidized or funded by other means that, if it came down to monies spent, earned, given, and donated, what's "earned" doesn't even come close to what's "spent." This was the big thing about Michigan's season ticket drop that year or so back...that's the most immediate and direct revenue intake schools have. When it drops, outside sources have to step in: fees, media, boosters...they don't make it on their own.

It isn't glamorous, but basketball really is where genuine money can be made by most involved. I'd love to see football schools renounce that group...because they'll be treading water without them.

Major basketball programs could probably afford to pay 10 guys $100k each.

Football just can't ... the rosters are way too big.

They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

With the 9th Circuit being probably the most liberal of the circuit courts. This ruling is a huge blow for the other case. I don't know which circuit the other case is in but basically they need a ruling to be in complete contradiction to this one for it to be taken seriously by the supreme court. Then again with the US courts, one never knows what to expect.

Looks like a huge win for the NCAA status quo.

(09-30-2015 10:11 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  With the 9th Circuit being probably the most liberal of the circuit courts. This ruling is a huge blow for the other case. I don't know which circuit the other case is in but basically they need a ruling to be in complete contradiction to this one for it to be taken seriously by the supreme court. Then again with the US courts, one never knows what to expect.

Not so fast. The article actually mentions that the case may be taken to the Supreme Court (of the US) ... by the NCAA.

Why? Didn't they just win? No.

The Federal Appeals court upheld the fact that the NCAA violated anti-trust laws by capping player compensation at less than FCOA. (which is stupid, in the first place ... it always should've allowed FCOA scholarships ... but anyway...)


That is important. It gives the Kessler lawsuit (the lawsuit seeking to turn major college football and basketball into professional leagues, essentially) a basis for an argument.


So the NCAA is going to want that stricken down, as well, to give itself the very best chance to beat the Kessler lawsuit.

(09-30-2015 10:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like a huge win for the NCAA status quo.

Probably not the thread to have this argument, but since you said that: what's wrong with capping the amount that players can be compensated to no more than the full cost of attending the school?

Seems reasonable to me. It's amateur athletics. Not professional.

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

(09-30-2015 09:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:33 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Federal appeals court upholds ruling NCAA violates antitrust laws
Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting what athletes can receive while playing sports violate antitrust laws, but the three-judge panel also threw out a plan that would have allowed schools to provide deferred athletes compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdt...view?pli=1

This should speed up the Power conferences splitting from NCAA. Why should the power conferences continue sharing all their hard earned revenue with the NCAA and all the leech schools, who are not generating much of the revenue .

There are plenty of leeches inside the power conferences too.

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

The thought that students as a whole graduate in 4 years is a big misnomer. Only 39% of students who entered college in 2007 graduated in 4 years. 34.5% males and 43.5% females. But 5 years those numbers jump up to 55.1% total, 51.6% male, 58.1% female. 6 years- 59.2% total- 56.5% male, 61.9% female. So it goes from 39% up to 55% just from year 4 to year 5.. 1/3 of the folks that graduate in 6 years do so in years 5 and 6- with that number closer to 2/3 for males. So athletes are no different than the general population there.

So.....when does EA Sports bring back college football?

(09-30-2015 11:19 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  So.....when does EA Sports bring back college football?

NCAA won't touch it. They won't license their trademarks. Its gone.