Court ruling in player compensation O'Bannon case
- Thread starter srru86
- Start date
I thought this was about naked free throws.
Whew.... we dodged another bullet.
MO:pimp:
Oh man, please make this happen!
I want to have Rutgers win the Big Ten and the NC every year for decades on end.
The NCAA lost this case. The primary issue is whether the NCAA is subject to anti-trust laws, and the 9th circuit said it was. If this goes to the Supreme Court it will be on that issue alone, with the NCAA seeking to improve its result.
The striking of the $5,000 deferred comp payment as overreaching won't be touched by the Supreme Court. They are not going to hear a case or overrule a Circuit Court on a determination like that.
I believe the 9th circuit is considered the most liberal (i.e. out of touch with reality or the law).
Let's see what the Supremes' say.
MO
Let's see what the Supremes' say.
MO
Obannon was basketball.. then Hart followed with a football based suit. No idea if the suits were merged.. etc... or if he settled.
I think what the NCAA lost today was an effort to get the case tossed on the basis that anti-trust did not apply to them. They have not lost the essence of the case, about the ownership and use of players names and likenesses and the limitations set on players.
I think it is very strange that this all seems to be centered around anti-trust. I cannot see any reason why the NCAA should be considered a monopoly of any sort. There is nothing stopping anyone from starting up a competing football league.
And as for its members, no one is preventing any college from joining the fun and going to the FBS. Any college can do it, with the right investments.
What "trade" is being "restrained"? Players making money off of their names and likenesses? Go ahead, leave school and do that. No one is stopping them.
BTW.. if this is a job the players have.. do they pay taxes on the tuition and/or room and board? Or is that a wash because education expenses are generally tax deductible? Perhaps only those goign to really expensive schools should be taxed on those benefits.. a luxury tax.
Last edited:
