NCAA Athletes *Can* Make Money, Says Court
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.
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, in a 99-page decision that followed a contentious three-week trial in June, sided with a group of plaintiffs, led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, who sued the NCAA, claiming it violated antitrust laws by conspiring with the schools and conferences to block the athletes from getting a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Based on the quick and dirty analysis I just read, this sounds like a crappy decision. The judge ruled that the NCAA can’t stop schools from paying players, but that they can’t pay them more than an arbitrary amount that the judge unilaterally decided on ($5,000 above the cost of tuition), and all players at a given school have to be paid the same amount. I don’t even want to know the tortured reasoning used to arrive at this decision.
It’s simple, it’s a compromise with conventional wisdom instead of dispensation of justice.
Or, activism that has nothing to do with the actual laws.
“Or, activism that has nothing to do with the actual laws.”
Some dimwit judge figures what is “fair”.
Some dimwit judge is as clueically-challenged as Obo.