Key rulings coming in key college athlete payment case
A district court is set to issue rulings in a case that could force the NCAA to share billions of dollars in revenues with student-athletes whose images it uses as merchandise.
February 21, 2014 at 05:53 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As a power forward for the UCLA Bruins, Ed O'Bannon won a national championship and the 1995 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player award. However, nobody could have guessed that his most lasting NCAA memory could possibly occur nearly 20 years later with a lawsuit that threatens to change the fabric of college athletics.
A district court is set to issue rulings in a case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, which could force the National Collegiate Athletic Association to share billions of dollars in revenues with student-athletes whose images are used for merchandise. While a trial in the class action case is set for June, both sides have asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to decide some major antitrust issues in the case beforehand.
Currently, the NCAA does not compensate players for use of likenesses in media past allowing scholarships to the athletes' respective academic institutions. O'Bannon, who filed the class action suit in 2009 after seeing his likeness used in a college basketball video game, argues that this use amounts to free labor for the NCAA.
However, the NCAA argues that amateurism rules bar student-athletes from receiving these types of payments. If forced to pay more than the price of education, the NCAA says, then college sports could not function. The association also argues that it does not actively restrict player rights like the suit claims.
Electronic Arts, the maker of the video game which used O'Bannon's likeness without his permission, was also named as a defendant in the original suit. However, the company settled the suit out of court in 2013 for a $40 million price tag. Electronic Arts no longer makes NCAA-branded college football and basketball games.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Judge Wilken said her order in the case should come “relatively soon,” but also noted that she would only be deciding certain aspects of the case and not the case in its entirety.
The O'Bannon case may be the only college amateurism case close to its finish, but it is not the only front on which the NCAA is being attacked. The National Labor Relations Board is currently conducting hearings as to whether college athletes should be considered employees and allowed to unionize, with the Northwestern University football team and the College Athletes Players Association as a test case.
For more on the legal arm of the education world, check out these InsideCounsel articles:
As a power forward for the UCLA Bruins, Ed O'Bannon won a national championship and the 1995 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player award. However, nobody could have guessed that his most lasting NCAA memory could possibly occur nearly 20 years later with a lawsuit that threatens to change the fabric of college athletics.
A district court is set to issue rulings in a case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, which could force the National Collegiate Athletic Association to share billions of dollars in revenues with student-athletes whose images are used for merchandise. While a trial in the class action case is set for June, both sides have asked U.S. District Judge
Currently, the NCAA does not compensate players for use of likenesses in media past allowing scholarships to the athletes' respective academic institutions. O'Bannon, who filed the class action suit in 2009 after seeing his likeness used in a college basketball video game, argues that this use amounts to free labor for the NCAA.
However, the NCAA argues that amateurism rules bar student-athletes from receiving these types of payments. If forced to pay more than the price of education, the NCAA says, then college sports could not function. The association also argues that it does not actively restrict player rights like the suit claims.
Electronic Arts, the maker of the video game which used O'Bannon's likeness without his permission, was also named as a defendant in the original suit. However, the company settled the suit out of court in 2013 for a $40 million price tag. Electronic Arts no longer makes NCAA-branded college football and basketball games.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Judge Wilken said her order in the case should come “relatively soon,” but also noted that she would only be deciding certain aspects of the case and not the case in its entirety.
The O'Bannon case may be the only college amateurism case close to its finish, but it is not the only front on which the NCAA is being attacked. The National Labor Relations Board is currently conducting hearings as to whether college athletes should be considered employees and allowed to unionize, with the Northwestern University football team and the College Athletes Players Association as a test case.
For more on the legal arm of the education world, check out these InsideCounsel articles:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250