Court shuts down plan to pay college athletes.

[highwayman]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25322621/court-shuts-down-plan-to-pay-athletes-says-ncaa-violates-antitrust-law

"In a significant opinion from the Ed O’Bannon case, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, in part, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling from August 2014 that required the NCAA to allow members to pay athletes up to $5,000 per year. The panel also upheld her decision allowing NCAA schools to give athletes scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The plaintiffs are better off seeking to eliminate the three year rule on NFL eligibility. Kill their two birds with one stone, and preserve amateurism for those of that appreciate the nuance. The rest of you can watch the NFL.

 

[4four4]

The plaintiffs are better off seeking to eliminate the three year rule on NFL eligibility. Kill their two birds with one stone, and preserve amateurism for those of that appreciate the nuance. The rest of you can watch the NFL.

No thanks, I'll watch Major Junior Football.

 

[Sparlimb]

The plaintiffs are better off seeking to eliminate the three year rule on NFL eligibility. Kill their two birds with one stone, and preserve amateurism for those of that appreciate the nuance. The rest of you can watch the NFL.

Will never happen as that rule is a collectively bargained rule between the NFL and its Player Association upheld by many years of precedence. That said, it's shaky legal ground to have an agreement between two parties to not employ a third party who is not a member of the negotiations.

 

[Ignatius L Hoops]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede...obannon-v-ncaa-lack-of-consumer-demand-study/

Jon Solomon at CBS has provided excellent coverage of the O'Bannon case. Here's an attorney in Forbes, Marc Edelman, writing about what he considers the hinge point in today's ruling.

"Although they had no obligation to produce a study under the burden-shifting framework of antitrust law’s Rule of Reason, their failure to do so likely cost them the case of appeal, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the NCAA’s evidence of increased fan interest in truly amateur sports, on balance, offset the anti-competitive effects of the NCAA’s no pay rules.

Moving forward, a number of other antitrust cases challenging the NCAA’s no-pay rules lie behind O’Bannon, including most notably Jenkins v. NCAA. While these subsequent cases will have to contend with the negative dicta generated from today’s opinion, layers in these subsequent cases should know one thing for certain.

If you want to bring down the NCAA ‘no pay’ rules, it is imperative to produce a study showing that athlete pay will not substantially harm consumer demand for college sporting events"