O'Bannon v NCAA

[DFW HOYA]

Of interest to this board in the ruling--the money making opportunities offered by the court do not apply to football players below the FBS level.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-ncaa/13801277/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-xndOAtapjShzlxeSyzO_OA

[darell1976]

Its too bad the NCAA couldn't fork over some cash to those on the games like the NFL does, they have to hog it all for themselves, well there may not be an NCAA anymore...at least the NCAA we know today.

[RichH2]

Of interest to this board in the ruling--the money making opportunities offered by the court do not apply to football players below the FBS level.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-ncaa/13801277/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-xndOAtapjShzlxeSyzO_OA
Not necessarily so DFW. THE lawsuit does only involve FBS players and games. The same logic would appear to be applicable to the numerous FCS conference TV contracts and the NCAA playoff package. The money may be miniscule in comparison ,but the issues are not dissimilar. Will there ever be such a lawsuit,probably not . It would yield less money tha it would cost. Now the appeals.

[Bill]

DFW

Thanks for the links...very good reading on vacation! I downloaded the 99 page decision, but haven't finished it yet.
I will say this - that is a very, very narrow ruling regarding FBS football and all DI basketball...interested in those "trust" set ups. I can't believe the judge - a woman, no less - could believe parts of her ruling will stand up to any title IX challenges. As Rich stated, now comes the decade of appeals and unintended consequences :)

[catamount man]

All because O'Bannon pissed his money away. And he said he was "too busy perfecting my craft to go to class". Does anybody think he ever had any intention of obtaining a degree at UCLA? Where does this mindset....never mind.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Who are these asshats who are trying to claim that the NCAA loses in this ruling? Considering what it could have been, the NCAA comes out intact, which is the most important legacy of this ruling.

I'm no lawyer, but I see this as a narrow ruling allowing the P5 to edge closer to increasing the cost of scholarships while keeping the rest of the NCAA largely in place. The NCAA does the "trust fund" idea for compensation for NIL, which is what they were thinking of doing anyway. Had she ruled that the athletes were fully entitled to NIL money, that could have destroyed the NCAA.

This ruling to me is a limp conclusion to three years of haranguing.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How can the court say that the NCAA is unfairly restricting trade as to the true value of a scholarship... and then say the NCAA should be allowed to cap the value of a scholarship?

How can the court legislate one definition of a scholarship for football and men's basketball, and another definition for everyone else? You can bet Title IX advocates are readying their legal briefs now about how now women's basketball will be "separate but equal".

How can the court legislate different definitions of Division I football scholarships without essentially forcing a brand-new subdivision? If they do, and a conference (say, the CAA) decides to then offer full cost of attendance, how can they continue to deny membership to this new P5 subdivision?

[Bogus Megapardus]

How can the court say that the NCAA is unfairly restricting trade as to the true value of a scholarship... and then say the NCAA should be allowed to cap the value of a scholarship?

How can the court legislate one definition of a scholarship for football and men's basketball, and another definition for everyone else? You can bet Title IX advocates are readying their legal briefs now about how now women's basketball will be "separate but equal".

How can the court legislate different definitions of Division I football scholarships without essentially forcing a brand-new subdivision? If they do, and a conference (say, the CAA) decides to then offer full cost of attendance, how can they continue to deny membership to this new P5 subdivision?

A court's goals in fashioning an anti-trust remedy are "justice" and "equity." Both are distinct terms of art in the legal realm. Despite popular conception (especially these days) neither term presupposes "fairness" or "equality" or even "consistency" of result. People are "equal" before the law (to the extent of access to courts) and the process is "fair" (everyone plays by the same set of rules) but the outcome of litigation rarely is either (especially in a subjective sense). This is by design - there is supposed to be a winner and a loser; the loser always will feel aggrieved.

"Separate but equal" is a term often bandied about. It had a distinct meaning in a constitutional civil rights case 60 years ago but it has no bearing on an anti-trust case between private, non-governmental persons or entities.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Here's the court's decision if you would like to read it -

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1272774/obannon-court-decision.pdf

[DFW HOYA]

How can the court say that the NCAA is unfairly restricting trade as to the true value of a scholarship... and then say the NCAA should be allowed to cap the value of a scholarship?

The court is not viewing the scholarship as as the means to the end. it held that in this narrow window (I-A/FBS and D-I basketball) , there is a restraint of trade because there is imputed value being withheld in the players' names, images, and likenesses (NIL). Not so in lower divisions and other sports, according to the judge. The cap is irregardless of the scholarship because it applies to all athletes in that protected class, including walk-ons.

How can the court legislate one definition of a scholarship for football and men's basketball, and another definition for everyone else? You can bet Title IX advocates are readying their legal briefs now about how now women's basketball will be "separate but equal".

It does so with the argument that these athletes hold intangible assets (NIL) the others do not. Title IX really doesn't play into this.

How can the court legislate different definitions of Division I football scholarships without essentially forcing a brand-new subdivision? If they do, and a conference (say, the CAA) decides to then offer full cost of attendance, how can they continue to deny membership to this new P5 subdivision?

The court ruling has nothing to do with NCAA governance, only the rights of the affected class.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How can the court say that the NCAA is unfairly restricting trade as to the true value of a scholarship... and then say the NCAA should be allowed to cap the value of a scholarship?

The court is not viewing the scholarship as as the means to the end. it held that in this narrow window (I-A/FBS and D-I basketball) , there is a restraint of trade because there is imputed value being withheld in the players' names, images, and likenesses (NIL). Not so in lower divisions and other sports, according to the judge. The cap is irregardless of the scholarship because it applies to all athletes in that protected class, including walk-ons.

Has the judge actually fired up old copies of EA Sports NCAA? It wasn't restricted to FBS. The Ivy League, CAA, and many other FCS schools were represented over the years, with matching players to numbers as well. That's not even talking about EA NCAA basketball, where I think all of Division I was represented.

So the judge is trying to make me believe that Ed O'Bannon's NIL is payable, his walk-on teammate, 12 th man on the bench is payable, but the same digitized Lehigh player with a jersey the same number as his playing jersey is not? That is ludicrous!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Hausfeld said the ruling might sound as if it applied to only football and men’s basketball players, but he believed the practical application is likely to be much larger.

“The big five conferences have always said they can’t discriminate with their athletes,” Hausfeld said. “They are going to have to give to all of their athletes in both of those sports, and all of their other sports, so it is gender neutral."

“Financial aid is part of the Title IX framework,” said Gerry Gurney, the president of the Drake Group, which pushes for educational reform in college athletics. “They must apply the cost of attendance to all athletes — or look for more lawsuits.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/sports/court-ruling-in-o-bannon-case-misses-a-key-element-clarity.html?referrer=

Note the part about a cap can be seen as a victory for the NCAA.

[DFW HOYA]

“Financial aid is part of the Title IX framework,” said Gerry Gurney, the president of the Drake Group, which pushes for educational reform in college athletics. “They must apply the cost of attendance to all athletes — or look for more lawsuits.”

Schools make decisions on scholarship aid all the time and not every athlete gets one, even at the bigger schools--similarly, not all athletes will get cost of attendance (COA) subsidies. Practically speaking, however, men and women will share COA at the larger schools. But the idea that Lehigh is giving this to every athlete is not going to happen, and some conferences may not even advance it.

Of course, when Fordham unilaterally announces they will apply COA to all their PL football scholarships at the cost of living in the Bronx (which ranges from $3,742 to $6,564 on its web site), well, what then?

[Nova09]

If I am reading this correctly, it would still be permissible for every conference to restrict NIL earnings to zero, as each individual conference represents a small enough market share to avoid antitrust. The key would be that the conferences could not collude to all enact/enforce such restrictions.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If I am reading this correctly, it would still be permissible for every conference to restrict NIL earnings to zero, as each individual conference represents a small enough market share to avoid antitrust. The key would be that the conferences could not collude to all enact/enforce such restrictions.

Interestingly, isn't P5 autonomy essentially legal collusion? Also, the P5 are the only group that could potentially collude in this case. If the Ivy League and CAA agreed on "restrictions" to have zero NIL individually, it couldn't affect the whole, nor would it affect what the P5 does or might do.

[MplsBison]

Not necessarily so DFW. THE lawsuit does only involve FBS players and games. The same logic would appear to be applicable to the numerous FCS conference TV contracts and the NCAA playoff package. The money may be miniscule in comparison ,but the issues are not dissimilar. Will there ever be such a lawsuit,probably not . It would yield less money tha it would cost. Now the appeals.

FCS football games (whether you're talking about regular season or playoffs) don't generate any revenue from using players' NILs in the first place.

So how can you share a piece of nothing with said players?

[MplsBison]

DFW

Thanks for the links...very good reading on vacation! I downloaded the 99 page decision, but haven't finished it yet.
I will say this - that is a very, very narrow ruling regarding FBS football and all DI basketball...interested in those "trust" set ups. I can't believe the judge - a woman, no less - could believe parts of her ruling will stand up to any title IX challenges. As Rich stated, now comes the decade of appeals and unintended consequences :)

Should be easy enough.

The defense of the university goes something like this "your honor, the plaintiff's NILs are worthless because no one watches [women's sport] on TV to any significant value, therefore the defendant doesn't generate any significant revenue from the plaintiff's NILs and thus has nothing to share with them".

[MplsBison]

Hausfeld said the ruling might sound as if it applied to only football and men’s basketball players, but he believed the practical application is likely to be much larger.

“The big five conferences have always said they can’t discriminate with their athletes,” Hausfeld said. “They are going to have to give to all of their athletes in both of those sports, and all of their other sports, so it is gender neutral."

“Financial aid is part of the Title IX framework,” said Gerry Gurney, the president of the Drake Group, which pushes for educational reform in college athletics. “They must apply the cost of attendance to all athletes — or look for more lawsuits.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/sports/court-ruling-in-o-bannon-case-misses-a-key-element-clarity.html?referrer=

Note the part about a cap can be seen as a victory for the NCAA.

Your problem is that you're conflating two entirely different things.

FCOA valued scholarships have absolutely nothing to do with the judge's ruling in regard to the cap that the NCAA is allowed to set for the per-year contribution to each player's trust account.

She said that the NCAA could create a cap on the per-year contribution to each player's trust account, so long as said cap is no less than $5000/year/player.

She also said that schools can then decide on their own to offer any amount from $0 up to the cap to each player. They don't have to give them anything, if they decide. Point being, the NCAA isn't allowed to tell them that they have to offer a certain amount or prevent them from offering anything.

BUT, the schools - in acting on their own - aren't allowed to collude with each other on setting an artificial amount (ie, the ADs can't all email each other and agree to make it $0 across the board). But that wouldn't work anyway. One day Auburn decides to offer each incoming freshman $1000/year/player and that automatically will trigger Alabama to offer $1500/year/player. And it goes on from there...

[Bill]

Mpls

It's not that easy. As long as these schools take federal funds for education, there's no way the Title IX commandos will allow this (the trusts) to happen. Whether or not there's revenue or a TV deal isn't the issue.

[Vooter]

The NCAA isn't the problem here; the age limits in the NFL and the NBA are the problem. Both leagues should be sued for restraint of trade based on age discrimination. Why shouldn't an 18-year-old adult be allowed to sign a contract and play professionally in either of those leagues if they want to? You can do it in pro baseball and pro hockey (and in other more minor pro sports)--what's the difference with football and basketball? I'll tell you what the difference is--as it stands, the NFL and the NBA enjoy a FREE minor-league system known as the NCAA. The entire "college athletes should be paid" issue would be moot if the NFL and NBA allowed players to turn pro immediately after high school, because basketball and football players would then have a clear choice: turn pro and make money, or don't turn pro, get a free ride in college (and forgo any licensing money), and then turn pro or do something else. You want to get paid for someone using your name, image or likeness? Turn pro. You want to get a scholarship and NOT get paid? Go to college. Your choice.

[SactoHornetFan]

The NCAA isn't the problem here; the age limits in the NFL and the NBA are the problem. Both leagues should be sued for restraint of trade based on age discrimination. Why shouldn't an 18-year-old adult be allowed to sign a contract and play professionally in either of those leagues if they want to? You can do it in pro baseball and pro hockey (and in other more minor pro sports)--what's the difference with football and basketball? I'll tell you what the difference is--as it stands, the NFL and the NBA enjoy a FREE minor-league system known as the NCAA. The entire "college athletes should be paid" issue would be moot if the NFL and NBA allowed players to turn pro immediately after high school, because basketball and football players would then have a clear choice: turn pro and make money, or don't turn pro, get a free ride in college (and forgo any licensing money), and then turn pro or do something else. You want to get paid for someone using your name, image or likeness? Turn pro. You want to get a scholarship and NOT get paid? Go to college. Your choice.

This!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FCS football games (whether you're talking about regular season or playoffs) don't generate any revenue from using players' NILs in the first place.

So how can you share a piece of nothing with said players?

You and the judge are false. FCS players' NIL were used in several incarnations of EA NCAA Football.

[MplsBison]

Mpls

It's not that easy. As long as these schools take federal funds for education, there's no way the Title IX commandos will allow this (the trusts) to happen. Whether or not there's revenue or a TV deal isn't the issue.

Well I'm not going to say that there won't be title IX lawsuits, regardless of what happens.

But I am going to say that I fear you, like LFN, are conflating FCOA valued scholarships and NIL trust funds.

- FCOA valued scholarships are going to be available to every Division I student athlete in the country that receives a scholarship. Whether the school decides to give those "extra" dollars that they will be allowed to give is up to each school. But I do think that if a school decides to give them to football players, they'll also have to give them to everyone else.

- NIL trust funds, on the other hand, are merely an agreed upon way for schools to pay some student athletes for usage of their NILs whereupon that usage generates value for the athletic department. If 98% of the student athletes' NILs don't generate value then the athletic department has no obligation to put money in a trust fund for those student athletes.

[MplsBison]

The NCAA isn't the problem here; the age limits in the NFL and the NBA are the problem. Both leagues should be sued for restraint of trade based on age discrimination. Why shouldn't an 18-year-old adult be allowed to sign a contract and play professionally in either of those leagues if they want to? You can do it in pro baseball and pro hockey (and in other more minor pro sports)--what's the difference with football and basketball? I'll tell you what the difference is--as it stands, the NFL and the NBA enjoy a FREE minor-league system known as the NCAA. The entire "college athletes should be paid" issue would be moot if the NFL and NBA allowed players to turn pro immediately after high school, because basketball and football players would then have a clear choice: turn pro and make money, or don't turn pro, get a free ride in college (and forgo any licensing money), and then turn pro or do something else. You want to get paid for someone using your name, image or likeness? Turn pro. You want to get a scholarship and NOT get paid? Go to college. Your choice.

You'd have to make every athletic department in the nation like the Ivy League, meaning no athletic merit aid whatsoever and only institutional aid based on financial need.

Otherwise, you run into the problem of a "scholarship" being an artificially low cap on the compensation that schools provide to players.


But believe it or not, it's actually not impossible that this very thing could happen. If one of the lawsuits succeeds in blowing up NCAA amateurism to the core and opens up actual pay for play, then the presidents will pull the plug. Every team will go DIII and the NFL and NBA will be forced to start their own minor league networks like MLB.