A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:10 pm

This serves Mark Emmert and his band of hypocritical, sanctimonious crooks right.

In dismissing a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues, a federal court judge Tuesday raised the stakes for the governing body of college sports as it defends its economic model.

Judge Claudia Wilken issued her ruling Tuesday, rejecting the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.

The NCAA had objected to the players amending their lawsuit last year to claim a share of all television game revenues, not just those from rebroadcasts.

"Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability that's based on the billions of dollars in revenue instead of tens or hundreds of millions," said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve."

Unlike NFL or NBA athletes, players lack a union or similar body to negotiate a share of revenues flowing from media and other licensing contracts. The NCAA does not legally treat athletes as employees, and players have not organized to represent their interests collectively.

The O'Bannon suit attacks that model through the means of class-action, the legal question now before Wilken. Former college stars such as Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson have joined O'Bannon on behalf of all Division I players in football and men's basketball, asking Wilken to declare that they are similarly situated and to certify the class.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... sion-money
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:17 am

jazzcyclist wrote:This serves Mark Emmert and his band of hypocritical, sanctimonious crooks right.

Slippery slope into HS sports broadcasting, which is starting to generate some real revenue. Are HS players entitled to a share of the take? I'd say that the colleges use that $$$ to plow back into their programs, so no harm, no foul.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:15 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:This serves Mark Emmert and his band of hypocritical, sanctimonious crooks right.

Slippery slope into HS sports broadcasting, which is starting to generate some real revenue. Are HS players entitled to a share of the take? I'd say that the colleges use that $$$ to plow back into their programs, so no harm, no foul.


If they lose a chunk of that revenue stream we would see a big economic loss, those poor, under-paid college coaches might see smaller paychecks. Those poor assistant coaches might not make five times what the President of the school makes.... Those moneys are plowed into the school's sports programs to stay competitive; cutting back on that top-level revenue would mean cutting back on such expenses and the continued arms race in facilities to attract the top recruits -- such expenditures are almost a zero-sum game and cutting back would probably help the lower-level teams more than the top 25.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:23 am

26mi235 wrote:If they lose a chunk of that revenue stream we would see a big economic loss, those poor, under-paid college coaches might see smaller paychecks. Those poor assistant coaches might not make five times what the President of the school makes.... Those moneys are plowed into the school's sports programs to stay competitive; cutting back on that top-level revenue would mean cutting back on such expenses and the continued arms race in facilities to attract the top recruits -- such expenditures are almost a zero-sum game and cutting back would probably help the lower-level teams more than the top 25.

AS you say, those revenues can fund other sports , and if the stream dries up, the football programs (salaries and facilities) won't be the ones to suffer.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:01 am

If football were not as revenue producing there would be lower levels of support for football because it would reduce its profitability. It is unclear how the revenues will flow and how awards to past players would be funded.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:23 am

26mi235 wrote:If football were not as revenue producing there would be lower levels of support for football because it would reduce its profitability. It is unclear how the revenues will flow and how awards to past players would be funded.

If football is not revenue-producing, the general operating budget of the institution gets zapped. And because football is the name product of the athletic program, it will get funded first.

While I agree that big D1 football programs are a semi-pro farm system for the NFL, and their players SHOULD get a better stipend, that can't be an across-the-board dictum, or you are draining the colleges' coffers that other students could benefit from.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby Mighty Favog » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:47 am

I fear this is the beginning of the end for college track and every other so-called "minor" sport. College sports are basically a socialist model; those sports on campus which make money pay for the existence of those other sports who don't. It's a precarious model to begin with and this makes it ever more so.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:58 am

Mighty Favog wrote:I fear this is the beginning of the end for college track and every other so-called "minor" sport. College sports are basically a socialist model; those sports on campus which make money pay for the existence of those other sports who don't. It's a precarious model to begin with and this makes it ever more so.

??!!
Throughout the 20th Century colleges have had to budget for their sports programs. Now there's some external entities (TV and sponsors/merchandising) ponying up some $$$, so how is this a bad thing?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Potential Landmark Court Ruling On NCAA Athletes

Postby wamego relays champ » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:41 am

Not a lawyer, but by my reading about this ruling it seems that there are several significant roadblocks on the path to a landmark ruling.

The judge denied the NCAA attempt to stop the O'Bannon camp's attempt to expand the case into a much broader class-action to include current athletes and live broadcasts. The denial was on a procedural ground, but there is still a pending motion to "certify" the class, and the judge has hinted that she may deny that on the actual merits.

So the plaintiffs cleared a youth intermediate hurdle, but before getting to any landmark potential they need to clear a full 42" high hurdle.

.
wamego relays champ
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Athleticsimaging, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Master Po and 13 guests