On a whim, I looked up Judge Wilken, the judge presiding over the cases. To my amazement, she was a year ahead of me at law school. But I have no recollection of her. (BTW, the infamous Lance Ito -- who I met -- was in her graduating class.)
Sources: NCAA in talks to settle NIL antitrust case
The leaders of college sports are involved in "deep discussions" to reach a legal settlement that would likely lay out the framework for sharing revenue with athletes in a future NCAA business model, sources told ESPN.www.espn.com
Now I have multiple questions/comments on a slight thread derail.
Yes, I also went to Berkeley undergrad -- so I am a double Golden Bear. I was at the game in 1969 where Cal *almost* upset Alcindor's (as he was known then) UCLA Bruins.
I like Ito's hourglass collection. I was just a law student at the time. In my third year, I took all night classes, and spent the first part of my day watching the trial. I was never interested in criminal law, and I was more interested in the spectacle than the legal proceedings.
BTW, Ito was also heavily criticized for allowing TV coverage of the trial.
I posted in the OJ thread how the trial really spawned the success of CourtTV, which also covered the Menendez brothers murder trial. I'm somewhat indifferent about TV coverage in the court room. On the good side, it gives laypeople a chance to see a court room in action. But I can see how it creates a distraction and when you have very animated counsel like F Lee Bailey and Johnny Cochrane, the trial becomes a spectacle.
It seems clear that Her Honor wants the cases to settle; as you know, that is a tremendous incentive to both sides to bring that about. Nobody wants the judge angry at them in a case of this magnitude. If nothing else, the judge doesn't want to have to preside over a long trial when there are certainly many other cases on her docket.
The problem is that Congressional legislation would be needed to authorize a collective bargaining agreement -- which is after all, an agreement between employers and employees -- without the players being considered employees. A more likely scenario is that the schools agree to pay players as part of a settlement of the current anti-trust suits, which the NCAA may well lose and which could subject them to triple damages.
The typical "trial" judge in a state court does not want to try any cases, no matter how many are on the docket. Judges become judges to get 1) a raise, 2) medical for life 3) status of being addressed as Judge so and so at cocktail parties and/or finding a soft landing after being eased out of a law partnership. This does not apply to federal court judges.
The cases are in federal court, not state court. That's where federal antitrust cases are heard. And, btw, I have enough experience with state court judges to tell you that, while there are bad apples, many (particularly here in New Jersey) do their duties conscientiously and were damn good lawyers.
On further review . . . I'm not sure my solution works for the long-term. It puts the court in the position of having to approve every subsequent change in the settlement (for instance, to grant cost of living increases). in perpetuity. Courts do not like having to do that. So there has to be some kind of collective bargaining either through unionization or some kind of legislation to allow collective bargaining with non-employees.
