# College football if O'Bannon wins the lawsuit **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [August 9, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799 "2013-08-09T12:41:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/261 "2014-08-08T23:33:40Z")
“In a landmark decision, a federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA is in violation of the nation’s antitrust laws by restricting the compensation that major college football and men’s basketball student-athletes can receive for use of their names, images and likenesses.” > **[Judge rules against NCAA in O'Bannon case](https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11328442/judge-rules-ncaa-ed-obannon-antitrust-case)** > > Major college football and men's basketball student-athletes could be in line for paydays worth thousands of dollars once they leave school after a landmark ruling Friday that might change the way the NCAA does business. The decision: > **[espn\_wilkindecision.pdf](https://www.espn.com/pdf/2014/0808/espn_wilkindecision.pdf)** Will the NCAA go to Congress next? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/262 "2014-08-08T23:57:02Z")
[Here’s a link to the AP story](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NCAA_REFORM_OBANNON_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-08-18-47-22). Good for those kids and all future athletes. Good on Judge Wilken for not being swayed by the ridiculous rhetoric that issued from the NCAA. Honestly, tho, I never thought this would turn out any differently; the plaintiffs had fantastic arguments on their side and the NCAA had “well, we like it this way” on their’s. I did find this bit somewhat disturbing tho: > [@](#): > > In a partial victory for the NCAA, though, Wilken said the body that governs college athletics could set a cap on the money paid to athletes, as long as it allows at least $5,000 per athlete per year of competition for players at big football and basketball schools. > > “The NCAA’s witnesses stated that their concerns about student-athlete compensation would be minimized or negated if compensation was capped at a few thousand dollars per year,” Wilken wrote. How the hell can that be enforced? I would think the first person who challenged the limit would win easily, since that’s the same sort of anti-trust violation that Judge Wilken just ruled against, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/263 "2014-08-09T05:35:00Z")
Look forward to the day when a judge rules that MLB is in violation of the nation’s antitrust laws… ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/264 "2014-08-09T05:55:10Z")
Baseball has an exemption from the antitrust laws: > **[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](https://www.yahoo.com/)** > > Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/265 "2014-08-09T09:06:57Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > Baseball has an exemption from the antitrust laws: > [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090120102612AAWU9AI](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090120102612AAWU9AI) Right. From your link, “The rationale was that baseball games were local affairs, not interstate commerce”. I doubt it applied in [1922](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Major_League_Baseball_season) and am fairly certain it doesn’t apply in [2014.](http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/team_by_team.jsp) And only Congress can overturn the exemption. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/266 "2014-08-09T11:31:51Z")
According to ESPN, the “Ruling will not affect any recruit enrolled in college before July 1, 2016.” So, what they’re doing is illegal, but they can keep doing it for the next 2 to 7 years. WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/267 "2014-08-09T12:55:43Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#): > > Right. From your link, “The rationale was that baseball games were local affairs, not interstate commerce”. I doubt it applied in [1922](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Major_League_Baseball_season) and am fairly certain it doesn’t apply in [2014.](http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/team_by_team.jsp) And only Congress can overturn the exemption. Good luck with that. Howard Metzenbaum used to routinely bring up the idea of overturning baseball’s antitrust exemption, but since he left the Senate, no one has mentioned it. The NFL has actually been on the losing end of antitrust claims, once when the tried to stop the Raiders from moving to Los Angeles and once when they blocked the USFL from getting TV contracts, if I recall correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/268 "2014-08-09T14:09:25Z")
In the short term, this appears to be a small win for the players. Both sides will appeal and maybe for some of the same reasons, i.e., challenging the court’s authority to set a salary cap. The players don’t want a cap at all and the schools don’t want one that determines a minimum amount they have to pay out of tv revenues because, well, they want all the money. It seems to me that the $5,000 cap will be a pittance to the Ohio States and Alabamas but will put a dent in the budgets of the Akrons and the Arkansas States. I haven’t read the decision all the way through, though, maybe the cap only applies to the big schools? And the money can be held in trust, which means players still won’t receive anything while they’re in school. How does that really help them now? It also appears that Wilken upheld the schools’ right to restrict outside earnings. That will certainly be appealed by the players. Booster money is worth potentially more than the $5,000 television payments. But in the long run, the ruling helps Jeffrey Kessler’s case as it works its tedious way through the system, according to Lester Munson of [ESPN.com](http://ESPN.com). Munson says that this settles the anti-trust argument in advance for Kessler and he can focus on challenging and overturning the remaining restrictions. That one won’t be here for another three or four years, though. All in all a nice first step but a curious and slightly muddled decision. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/269 "2014-08-11T20:57:40Z")
I have no idea who he is, but [Jeb Lund has a fairly good commentary on the ruling at VICE. > [@Jeb Lund](#): > > That’s what’s troubling about this ruling—the prospect that after it, the status quo will remain relatively untroubled. The temptation is to celebrate this victory, though big-time college athletics remains a monopoly in which workers aren’t paid nearly what they’re worth. We can’t rest here; we should be looking at how much farther there is to go. ]([https://sports.vice.com/article/the-obannon-ruling-is-just-a-first-step-toward-economic-justice-for-college-athletes](https://sports.vice.com/article/the-obannon-ruling-is-just-a-first-step-toward-economic-justice-for-college-athletes)) ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/270 "2014-08-12T12:29:54Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I have no idea who he is, but [Jeb Lund has a fairly good commentary on the ruling at VICE.](https://sports.vice.com/article/the-obannon-ruling-is-just-a-first-step-toward-economic-justice-for-college-athletes) I simply don’t see how Wilken’s silly salary cap or continued restrictions on outside income will survive the next round of lawsuits. Charles Pearce of Grantland wrote yesterday that the real importance of the O’Bannon decision was that a door had been opened, the athletes had stepped through it and then closed it behind them. The NCAA’s ability to unilaterally make rules favoring itself without regard to the players has been obliterated and it will never get it back. Still, the schools’ got off so easy that they may want to consider not appealing this verdict. The best thing that could happen now is that a school like Michigan says “fuck it” and sends a small army of recruiters into the deep south with offers of $30,000 stipends. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/271 "2014-08-12T12:34:42Z")
One last word about Judge Wilken’s concerns about the “commercial exploitation” of the players should they be allowed to accept endorsement money. Ridiculous, that’s the word I’ll use. See, we have these people called “lawyers” and “financial advisors” who are professionals paid to represent the best interests of their clients. In addition, offering guidance is a natural purview of the schools as well. If the schools want any semblance of paternalism to remain, then helping their athletes cope with the complexities of commercial freedom is a good place for it. The last thing it should be is an adversarial relationship. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/272 "2014-08-12T22:06:10Z")
I notice a couple of things in the judge’s “remedy.” First, it applies only to “recruits”; it doesn’t seem to apply to current players. Second, everybody is talking about a $5000/year cap, but there appear to be two different sets of payments. First, there’s money put into trust, which the player receives when he leaves school or his eligibility runs out; this can be limited to $5000/year. Second, recruits can be offered “a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses **in addition to a full grant-in-aid** ,” and “the NCAA will not be permitted to set this cap below the cost of attendance.” The way I read the second one, players can receive, in effect, _the equivalent value of their scholarship in cash, immediately, in addition to the scholarship itself_. I still see a problem with the fact that it is the school that is paying them, and not the companies licensing the player’s names/likenesses; it is asking for a Title IX lawsuit from somebody claiming that these payments count as “men’s sports expenditures.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/273 "2014-08-13T01:19:20Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > I notice a couple of things in the judge’s “remedy.” > > First, it applies only to “recruits”; it doesn’t seem to apply to current players. > > Second, everybody is talking about a $5000/year cap, but there appear to be two different sets of payments. First, there’s money put into trust, which the player receives when he leaves school or his eligibility runs out; this can be limited to $5000/year. Second, recruits can be offered “a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses **in addition to a full grant-in-aid** ,” and “the NCAA will not be permitted to set this cap below the cost of attendance.” The way I read the second one, players can receive, in effect, _the equivalent value of their scholarship in cash, immediately, in addition to the scholarship itself_. > > I still see a problem with the fact that it is the school that is paying them, and not the companies licensing the player’s names/likenesses; it is asking for a Title IX lawsuit from somebody claiming that these payments count as “men’s sports expenditures.” Too late; that’s already gonna happen. Remember in March when [the NLRB said that college athletes are employees](http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/03/26/nlrb-rules-college-athletes-are-employees-can-form-unions/NcgoJZ7XxzjEaBhUdQpEBJ/story.html)? ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/274 "2014-08-24T16:21:32Z")
The lawyers involved make clear they only filed this suit only because of their concern for the plight of student athletes: they only request a very modest $52.4 million dollars in attorney fees and costs: [http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24675420/obannon-lawyers-seek-524-million-from-ncaa-after-victory](http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24675420/obannon-lawyers-seek-524-million-from-ncaa-after-victory) The NCAA files an appeal: > **[NCAA files intent to appeal O'Bannon decision](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/11387865/ncaa-files-intent-appeal-obannon-decision)** > > The NCAA has notified the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it intends to appeal a judge's ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case that it violated antitrust laws. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/275 "2014-08-25T00:12:05Z")
For some fraction of the cost of constantly fighting these lawsuits – they’re never going to stop being filed and the schools can’t ultimately win them – the schools could head them off by adjusting their eligibility rules. Letting boosters gift to the athletes won’t cost them anything in numbers of fans or television monies, _despite the bluster of a few self-delusional traditionalists._ They’ll still watch. Oh yes, they’ll watch. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/276 "2014-09-04T03:58:19Z")
[Catherine Bellis is a 15-year old tennis phenom](https://sports.vice.com/article/why-americas-newest-tennis-sweetheart-should-sue-the-ncaa). She just won her first real tournament match in the first round of the US Open, but will have to decline the $60,000 that comes with it, so she can play tennis for her college. [ > [@](#): > > On Monday, 15-year-old Catherine Bellis defeated No. 12 seed and Australian Open finalist Dominika Cibulkova in the first round of the U.S. Open, becoming the youngest woman to win a match at the tournament in almost two decades. By winning her first Women’s Tennis Association Tour-level match, Bellis also earned at least $60,000 in prize money—a one-day windfall she and her family plan to decline, the better to preserve her amateur status under National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules should she later decide to play college tennis. > > In other words: A hardworking, ambitious, successful American teenager just forfeited the equivalent of a year’s salary—at a pretty damn good job, no less—in order to maybe play collegiate sports for free at some point in the future. Bellis was forced to make this choice because a bunch of university administrators have collectively decided that college athletes should not be allowed to make money playing sports, even when said playing and money-making takes place before said athletes ever step foot on campus. ]([https://sports.vice.com/article/why-americas-newest-tennis-sweetheart-should-sue-the-ncaa](https://sports.vice.com/article/why-americas-newest-tennis-sweetheart-should-sue-the-ncaa)) Personally, I think she and her 'rents are being stupid as hell. Take the money. Fuck playing for college. She can pay for her own college with her winnings after she retires from the pro circuit. But FFS the NCAA is a ridiculous scam and needs to be stopped. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/277 "2014-09-04T13:10:39Z")
If the US Open folks had any balls, they would announce that the 60K is being put into a scholarship fund for the girl with any remaining money to be paid out to her after graduation. Let the NCAA fight that shit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/278 "2014-09-04T13:44:52Z")
I don’t think it really qualifies as a “scholarship” if the money comes after graduation. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/279 "2014-10-12T20:55:16Z")
In a recent Grantland piece, Andrew Sharp commented on how muted the media response has been to the news that Georgia RB Tod Gurley was suspended for selling his autograph. And that there was so little outrage was in itself a small amount of progress. We’re shifting, in ways that we’ve seen before,to a general acceptance of a behavior that was only recently considered unacceptable. This past Wednesday a new lawsuit was filed by a group of former college players, this time against the television networks, alleging > [@](#): > > that college athletes have not legally assigned their publicity rights to TV networks, conferences and licensing companies, and that the defendants conspired to exploit NCAA rules that prevent players from competing for their market value This battle is far from being won but I get the feeling that the suits will never stop coming until reasonable concessions are made. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/280 "2014-10-12T22:23:06Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The NFL has actually been on the losing end of antitrust claims, once when the tried to stop the Raiders from moving to Los Angeles and once when they blocked the USFL from getting TV contracts, if I recall correctly. Once on the [Rozelle Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_clause#NFL), too (which basically meant teams who drafted players kept them for ever and ever), in _Mackey v. NFL_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799.md?page=15)