# 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:** 15
**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:** [July 18, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/281 "2015-07-18T15:15:33Z")
> [@](#): > > A federal judge approved a $60 million settlement for college athletes in a class-action lawsuit filed against the N.C.A.A. and the video game maker Electronics Arts. > > Steve Berman, a Seattle-based lawyer for the plaintiffs, confirmed Friday that Claudia Wilken, a United States District Court judge for the Northern District of California, had approved the settlement during a hearing Thursday. > **[$60 Million Settlement Approved in N.C.A.A. Video Game Lawsuit (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/sports/ncaa-video-game-lawsuit-60-million-settlement-is-approved.html?_r=0)** > > A federal judge approved a $60 million settlement for college athletes in a class-action lawsuit filed against the N.C.A.A. and the video game maker Electronics Arts. ---
**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:** [July 18, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/282 "2015-07-18T16:48:32Z")
Woot! ---
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/283 "2015-07-19T22:20:05Z")
So, how soon before all scholarship offers include the following condition: “Such offer of financial aid is under the condition that any money earned through the use of your likeness while representing an athletics team of this institution in any way, including video games and broadcast rights, shall be paid back to the institution up to the amount of the aid in question”? (Translation: “any money you make from video game royalties or selling your rights as part of a TV contract must be used to pay off your scholarship; you can keep what’s left after that”) ---
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/284 "2015-07-19T22:36:03Z")
It’ll be more than the scholarship amount; the ruling allows an offset after the full cost of attendance, which is more than a “full scholarship” covers. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/285 "2015-07-20T13:43:42Z")
[Sara Ganim of CNN writes today](http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/us/ncaa-antitrust-exemption/index.html)that Ken Starr, now president of Baylor, is among a small number of college officials advocating for colleges to get an anti-trust exemption for their sports programs. The idea is that that’s preferable over having systemic change forced on them by the never ending chain of lawsuits against the NCAA. All ADs would probably like an exemption but there appears to be pushback on the hypothetical terms. Particularly that sports may be limited in the length of their seasons and that coaches’ salaries may be capped. Big schools wouldn’t like wrapping up their football seasons before Christmas nor waiting for their basketball seasons to start until after the Christmas break. Coaching salaries could probably be end-run by letting the boosters pick up the slack. I’d worry about an exemption allowing schools to continue their prohibition against booster payments to the athletes, however. I wouldn’t like that all. I would like to see the money sports de-emphasized and coaching salaries slashed but not at the price of the athletes’ abilities to continue making progress through the court system. ---
**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 30, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/286 "2015-09-30T15:20:46Z")
The Ninth Circuit just upheld the trial court’s ruling (other than likeness fees). Opinion should be published [here](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000757) shortly. ---
**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 30, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/287 "2015-09-30T15:23:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Ninth Circuit just upheld the trial court’s ruling (other than likeness fees). Opinion should be published [here](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000757) shortly. Fantastic! Thanks for the timely notice, **RNATB**! I look forward to reading the Ninth Circuit’s 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:** [September 30, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/288 "2015-09-30T18:34:28Z")
[The Ninth Circuit opinion has been published](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2015/09/30/14-16601%20Opinion.pdf). ---
**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 30, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/289 "2015-09-30T18:36:55Z")
Looks like I was wrong. They overturned the deferred compensation ruling also. But full cost of attendance is a start. ---
**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 30, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/290 "2015-09-30T19:37:40Z")
That decision is a serious smackdown for the NCAA. It looks to me like the deferred compensation was negated because Plaintiffs took the wrong tack when arguing and because Judge Wilkens had too little information to be able to justify her reasoning. I can understand the majority opinion and reluctantly agree with their decision. That doesn’t mean that compensation is not or cannot ever be an option, just that the reasons for it being in her decision aren’t strong enough for a higher court to affirm. Should another case argue the point purely from a restraint of trade perspective (as in the Kessler lawsuit) and/or employment law perspective (as in Sackos v. NCAA), I think there’s a strong likelihood of success. ---
**Author:** ![divemaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/divemaster/32/78_2.png) [@divemaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/divemaster)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/291 "2015-10-01T11:16:33Z")
Everything I’ve heard on the radio says this is a clear win for the NCAA. A reporter/analyst with inside knowledge reported that the NCAA leadership was palpably relieved and happy (enough) with the outcome. The _Washington Post_ story leads off with “A federal appeals panel awarded the NCAA a clear victory in the organization’s defense of amateurism” but does go on to acknowledge the NCAA business model is still vulnerable to future court challenges. ESPN leads off with “Court rules NCAA violates antitrust law, but penalty is relatively peanuts” and that as long as the NCAA pays the full cost of an athlete’s college education going forward, it will no longer be in violation of those laws. “NCAA president Mark Emmert and his top lawyer, Donald Remy, were clearly trying not to smirk in delight with the ruling. The decision is a rare bit of good news for an organization that has been under perpetual attack in antitrust litigation during the past several years.” Certainly does not appear to be a “smackdown.” ---
**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:** [October 1, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/292 "2015-10-01T17:36:02Z")
> [@divemaster](#): > > Everything I’ve heard on the radio says this is a clear win for the NCAA. A reporter/analyst with inside knowledge reported that the NCAA leadership was palpably relieved and happy (enough) with the outcome. The _Washington Post_ story leads off with “A federal appeals panel awarded the NCAA a clear victory in the organization’s defense of amateurism” but does go on to acknowledge the NCAA business model is still vulnerable to future court challenges. > > ESPN leads off with “Court rules NCAA violates antitrust law, but penalty is relatively peanuts” and that as long as the NCAA pays the full cost of an athlete’s college education going forward, it will no longer be in violation of those laws. “NCAA president Mark Emmert and his top lawyer, Donald Remy, were clearly trying not to smirk in delight with the ruling. The decision is a rare bit of good news for an organization that has been under perpetual attack in antitrust litigation during the past several years.” > > Certainly does not appear to be a “smackdown.” First, you should read the Ninth Circuit opinion, linked above, not just read or listen to news reports. Second, the reason I characterized as a smackdown is because every single one of the NCAA’s arguments was smacked down. Every one of them. The deferred payments weren’t removed because the NCAA made a good case for them being removed. They were removed because the Ninth circuit felt that Judge Wilkens did not have enough information available to legally make the decision she made regarding the deferred payments. She didn’t have enough information/testimony on whether they would have an effect on competition, whether or not $5000 was a minimal amount or a fair amount, etc. Basically, they found that she ruled by fiat in making the deferred compensation judgement. But the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all issues the plaintiffs raised, and found 0% of the NCAA’s arguments had any substance to them whatsoever. That’s a legal smackdown. ---
**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 1, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/293 "2015-10-01T17:37:24Z")
That’s not really how it works. If there wasn’t enough evidence before the judge on an issue, that’s the plaintiffs’ fault. They have the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![divemaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/divemaster/32/78_2.png) [@divemaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/divemaster)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/294 "2015-10-01T17:40:20Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all issues the plaintiffs raised, and found 0% of the NCAA’s arguments had any substance to them whatsoever. > > That’s a legal smackdown. Then why is the NCAA so happy? ---
**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 1, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/295 "2015-10-01T18:09:01Z")
> [@divemaster](#): > > Then why is the NCAA so happy? For the immediate moment, they don’t have to compete financially for athletes, at least from the standpoint of actually cutting monthly stipend checks (not counting the cost of attendance monies). The big issues – whether the schools have special exemptions from the normal commercial rules of the nation – continue to get shakier with each court opinion. This one decided that they are indeed not exempt from anti-trust law and the “we’re special” defense has been integral to them from Day One. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/296 "2015-10-01T18:56:56Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > For the immediate moment, they don’t have to compete financially for athletes, at least from the standpoint of actually cutting monthly stipend checks (not counting the cost of attendance monies). The NCAA itself (i.e. whoever is in the headquarters in Indianapolis) doesn’t have to pay anything, and nobody asked them to. This whole thing is about allowing the schools to pay players stipends and allowing the players to accept money from outside sources for, e.g., use of their likenesses without punishing the schools for it. Besides - if the NCAA had to pay a stipend to every athlete, I am assuming that it would have to pay every Division I and II athlete (Division III may be exempt as there are no scholarships there anyway) in every sport. I realize the decision is limited to FBS football and Division I men’s basketball, but do you honestly think there wouldn’t be suits by women claiming discrimination because they weren’t chosen for those teams? (“Obviously, the men are better players!” “Er, isn’t the whole point of Affirmative Action the fact that you can’t use that as a defense of discrimination?”) ---
**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 1, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/297 "2015-10-01T19:17:42Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > The NCAA itself (i.e. whoever is in the headquarters in Indianapolis) doesn’t have to pay anything, and nobody asked them to. This whole thing is about allowing the schools to pay players stipends and allowing the players to accept money from outside sources for, e.g., use of their likenesses without punishing the schools for it. > > Besides - if the NCAA had to pay a stipend to every athlete, I am assuming that it would have to pay every Division I and II athlete (Division III may be exempt as there are no scholarships there anyway) in every sport. I realize the decision is limited to FBS football and Division I men’s basketball, but do you honestly think there wouldn’t be suits by women claiming discrimination because they weren’t chosen for those teams? (“Obviously, the men are better players!” “Er, isn’t the whole point of Affirmative Action the fact that you can’t use that as a defense of discrimination?”) I’m using the NCAA and “the schools” interchangeably here, as I think most observers do. Of course the NCAA itself isn’t going to pay stipends to athletes. [Here’s an interesting analysis](http://www.atlredline.com/ncaa-defeated-by-rule-of-reason-in-obannon-lawsuit-1733800261) from Above the Law Redline, calling the negation of the $5,000 a “consolation prize” for the schools. The bigger picture was that the court determined that the NCAA and the schools were in fact bound by anti-trust law, which would force them to defend their practices of limiting athletes’ individual commercial rights. In short, they’ll need to prove that banning outside income for athletes results in greater competitive choices for those involved in the enterprise (part of the Rule of Reason, as I understand it). This thing has almost reached the Supreme Court. The schools are running out of appeals and Kessler is coming. ---
**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 1, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/298 "2015-10-01T19:30:20Z")
That’s not quite right. They need to prove that banning outside income is a “procompetitive” measure overall. The NCAA’s position is that it is, because the amateurism rules ultimately further the NCAA brand and/or public consumption of its product. Given the existence of the NFL, that’s a hard sell, but there you go. ---
**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 1, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/299 "2015-10-01T20:07:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not quite right. They need to prove that banning outside income is a “procompetitive” measure overall. The NCAA’s position is that it is, because the amateurism rules ultimately further the NCAA brand and/or public consumption of its product. Given the existence of the NFL, that’s a hard sell, but there you go. It was interesting to me that two of the three judges effectively rejected the “Olympic model” idea, writing that > [@](#): > > “But professional baseball and the Olympics are not fit analogs to college sports,” the panel wrote. “The Olympics have not been nearly as transformed by the introduction of professionalism as college sports would be.” I don’t understand this reasoning. The Olympics’ situation fifty years ago was almost exactly like the arguments surrounding college sports today. Tons of people said then that they would stop watching the Olympics if amateurism was discontinued and it was all stinky bullshit. ---
**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 1, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799/300 "2015-10-01T20:44:49Z")
Well, it’s not exactly the same. The Olympics weren’t tied to mostly-not-for-profit colleges and universities. But it’s still hard to distinguish the two. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/college-football-if-obannon-wins-the-lawsuit/665799.md?page=16)