NCAAF

#HeyFANS The O’Bannon Ruling

#HeyFANS Do you know about the trial & ruling of O’Bannon vs. NCAA?

Quick explanation on why FANS (YES YOU) should know about this: First of all the NCAA lost in this ruling and they are going to appeal it. According to CBSsports.com,  this case was about a group of 20 former and current football and men’s basketball players, led by ex-UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who wanted an injunction to end the NCAA’s rules preventing players from being paid for use of their names, images or likenesses. They claim the NCAA’s restrictions violate antitrust law.

This case focuses on live broadcasts, rebroadcasts, highlight clips and video games. The O’Bannon plaintiffs lost their attempt to seek $3.2 billion in damages from 2005-06 through 2010-11 and have said they’re dropping individual claims against the NCAA. That narrows this trial to whether the NCAA is illegally restricting athletes from being paid for their names, images and likenesses, states CBSsports.com.

I wanted to share with you this piece from Business of College Sports by Kristi Dosh. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram at @SportsBizMiss. She explains what ruling does not mean and you can go to the website to see her full report. Read below:

  • It does not mean all student athletes are getting cost-of-attendance stipends. In fact, it doesn’t even mean all football and men’s basketball student athletes are getting cost-of-attendance stipends. What the ruling said was that the NCAA cannot set a rule limiting stipends to anything less than cost-of-attendance for football and men’s basketball student athletes. If I were a betting woman, I’d say the NCAA sets the limit for stipends at cost of attendance and allows all student athletes to receive that stipend. Some schools will be able to afford to implement the stipend, some will not. There is no requirement in the ruling that schools must starting funding cost of attendance stipends, merely that the NCAA cannot legislate against it.
  • You’ve probably heard about the $5,000 tied to the trust fund idea. It does not mean every football and men’s basketball student athlete is automatically accruing $5,000 per year in a trust fund to access after graduation or exhaustion of eligibility. What the judge said was that the NCAA cannot prevent schools from offering at least $5,000 per year to football and men’s basketball student athletes (to be placed in a trust for disbursement upon graduation or exhaustion of eligibility). The NCAA will likely set the cap at the minimum $5,000/student athlete/year. Each individual school can then decide if they want to participate, but they are not required to do so. One school might decide on the $5,000 number, another might only be able to do $2,500, and yet another might decide they cannot afford to do anything. Whatever the schools choose, they must implement it equally across a recruiting class. You can’t offer higher-profile recruits more than other recruits. You can, however, change the amount with each new recruiting class.
  • Sadly, it does not mean the NCAA Football video game is coming back. The judge did not rule that football and men’s basketball players could pursue individual commercial sponsorship or endorsement deals. In other words, they can’t sign on their own with EA Sports or Nike or Gatorade or anyone else. The ruling simply forces the NCAA to allow schools to share some licensing revenue with student athletes under the two very limited circumstances explained above. Is still means schools will have to decide to license with EA Sports or other video game producers in order for the games to come back. Student athletes cannot join together and go license their name, image and likeness to create video games, at least not under this ruling.

Saturday Millionaires CTA (1)

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top