Member colleges of the N.C.A.A. must compensate student-athletes only for the cost of attendance, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Wednesday in an apparent victory for the college sports establishment as it fights back efforts to expand athletes’ rights.
The ruling upheld a federal judge’s finding last year that the N.C.A.A. “is not above antitrust laws” and that its rules have been too restrictive in maintaining amateurism. But the panel threw out the judge’s proposal that N.C.A.A. members should pay athletes $5,000 per year in deferred compensation, stating that compensation for the cost of attendance was sufficient.
“Today, we reaffirm that N.C.A.A. regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny and must be tested in the crucible of the Rule of Reason,” the appeals panel wrote in what is known as the O’Bannon case.
“In this case,” it added, “the N.C.A.A.’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 N.C.A.A. permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student-athletes. It does not require more.”
In a statement, the N.C.A.A. president, Mark Emmert, said: “We have not completely reviewed the court’s 78-page decision, but we agree with the court that the injunction ‘allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year was erroneous.’ Since Aug. 1, the N.C.A.A. has allowed member schools to provide up to full cost of attendance; however, we disagree that it should be mandated by the courts.”
The case, formally O’Bannon v. N.C.A.A., is known by the name of its lead plaintiff, Ed O’Bannon, a former U.C.L.A. basketball star.
In 2009, O’Bannon, sued the N.C.A.A. for using his name and image in television broadcasts and video games. His legal team argued that players are required to sign waivers to allow the use of their likenesses but that, since those contracts are worth billions of dollars, players are entitled to a piece of the revenue.
The N.C.A.A. countered that college athletes are amateurs and that anything amounting to pay-for-play would transform college sports into something unrecognizable, professionalizing the players and hurting college sports’ business model.
During the appeal’s oral arguments in March, the association argued that the judge did not pay proper deference to a 1984 Supreme Court case involving college football TV rights in which Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dictum that read, “To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid.”
In July, the panel issued a stay on the judge’s order, which was set to go into effect Aug. 1. Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in upholding the finding that N.C.A.A. rules are subject to antitrust law but dissenting from the finding that struck down the $5,000 cap.
Though legally a dispute over antitrust law, the case has come to embody a broader debate about whether college athletes, who ostensibly pursue sports as part of their education, should be compensated for labors that are highly lucrative for their colleges, conferences and the N.C.A.A.
“They specifically went in and said the N.C.A.A. violated antitrust law,” said Sonny Vaccaro, a longtime N.C.A.A. critic who helped launch the O’Bannon lawsuit. “That opens things up and it’s tremendous.”
The decision along with N.C.A.A. reform, in part prompted by and aimed at heading off lawsuits like this one, has prompted many colleges that field teams in the top football conferences and in Division I men’s basketball to begin setting aside more money to compensate athletes. Those payments potentially raise new questions about competitive balance in college sports, Title IX rules relating to women’s sports and athletic department bottom lines.
The tide generally has turned toward the expansion of athletes’ rights, although the N.C.A.A. and colleges still insist their athletes are amateurs and students first. Earlier this year, the five most powerful conferences voted to allow colleges to offer athletes the full cost of attendance, an amount typically several thousand dollars more than previous scholarship limits.
Last month, the N.C.A.A. and the college sports establishment won another victory when the National Labor Relations Board overturned a regional director’s finding that Northwestern football players are employees who may unionize under federal labor law.
A separate proposed class action filed by the renowned sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, which experts see as a far bigger threat to the college sports status quo, seeks to establish a free market for top college athletes. A class certification hearing is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/s...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The ruling upheld a federal judge’s finding last year that the N.C.A.A. “is not above antitrust laws” and that its rules have been too restrictive in maintaining amateurism. But the panel threw out the judge’s proposal that N.C.A.A. members should pay athletes $5,000 per year in deferred compensation, stating that compensation for the cost of attendance was sufficient.
“Today, we reaffirm that N.C.A.A. regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny and must be tested in the crucible of the Rule of Reason,” the appeals panel wrote in what is known as the O’Bannon case.
“In this case,” it added, “the N.C.A.A.’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 N.C.A.A. permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student-athletes. It does not require more.”
In a statement, the N.C.A.A. president, Mark Emmert, said: “We have not completely reviewed the court’s 78-page decision, but we agree with the court that the injunction ‘allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year was erroneous.’ Since Aug. 1, the N.C.A.A. has allowed member schools to provide up to full cost of attendance; however, we disagree that it should be mandated by the courts.”
The case, formally O’Bannon v. N.C.A.A., is known by the name of its lead plaintiff, Ed O’Bannon, a former U.C.L.A. basketball star.
In 2009, O’Bannon, sued the N.C.A.A. for using his name and image in television broadcasts and video games. His legal team argued that players are required to sign waivers to allow the use of their likenesses but that, since those contracts are worth billions of dollars, players are entitled to a piece of the revenue.
The N.C.A.A. countered that college athletes are amateurs and that anything amounting to pay-for-play would transform college sports into something unrecognizable, professionalizing the players and hurting college sports’ business model.
During the appeal’s oral arguments in March, the association argued that the judge did not pay proper deference to a 1984 Supreme Court case involving college football TV rights in which Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dictum that read, “To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid.”
In July, the panel issued a stay on the judge’s order, which was set to go into effect Aug. 1. Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in upholding the finding that N.C.A.A. rules are subject to antitrust law but dissenting from the finding that struck down the $5,000 cap.
Though legally a dispute over antitrust law, the case has come to embody a broader debate about whether college athletes, who ostensibly pursue sports as part of their education, should be compensated for labors that are highly lucrative for their colleges, conferences and the N.C.A.A.
“They specifically went in and said the N.C.A.A. violated antitrust law,” said Sonny Vaccaro, a longtime N.C.A.A. critic who helped launch the O’Bannon lawsuit. “That opens things up and it’s tremendous.”
The decision along with N.C.A.A. reform, in part prompted by and aimed at heading off lawsuits like this one, has prompted many colleges that field teams in the top football conferences and in Division I men’s basketball to begin setting aside more money to compensate athletes. Those payments potentially raise new questions about competitive balance in college sports, Title IX rules relating to women’s sports and athletic department bottom lines.
The tide generally has turned toward the expansion of athletes’ rights, although the N.C.A.A. and colleges still insist their athletes are amateurs and students first. Earlier this year, the five most powerful conferences voted to allow colleges to offer athletes the full cost of attendance, an amount typically several thousand dollars more than previous scholarship limits.
Last month, the N.C.A.A. and the college sports establishment won another victory when the National Labor Relations Board overturned a regional director’s finding that Northwestern football players are employees who may unionize under federal labor law.
A separate proposed class action filed by the renowned sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, which experts see as a far bigger threat to the college sports status quo, seeks to establish a free market for top college athletes. A class certification hearing is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/s...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
