March Madness: 3 Takeaways From Latest NCAA Basketball Antitrust Ruling
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland on Friday issued an injunction barring the NCAA and its member schools and conferences from capping education-related benefits such as computers, science equipment, postgraduate scholarships, and aid to study abroad to Division I women's and men's basketball players and football players at schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision.
March 11, 2019 at 04:40 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
“March Madness” means buzzer beaters, tournament brackets, and competition to college basketball fans.
But on Friday, a federal judge in Oakland got in on the month's madness with a 104-page ruling outlining the limits to competition the National Collegiate Athletic Association has put on the market for Division I women's and men's basketball players and football players at schools in the NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California found the NCAA in violation of federal antitrust law and issued an injunction barring the organization and its member schools and conferences from capping education-related benefits such as computers, science equipment, postgraduate scholarships, and aid to study abroad to the athlete plaintiffs.
“We have proven to the court that the NCAA's weak justifications for this unfair system are based on a self-serving mythology that does not match the facts,” said Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's Steve Berman, who tried the bench trial for plaintiffs last year alongside Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn. “Today's ruling will change college sports as we know it forever.”
Wilken's ruling, however, stopped short of giving plaintiffs everything they had asked for—namely, eliminating all limits on compensation for the plaintiffs.
Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, said in a statement that Wilken's decision “recognizes that college sports should be played by student-athletes, not by paid professionals.”
“The decision acknowledges that the popularity of college sports stems in part from the fact that these athletes are indeed students, who must not be paid unlimited cash sums unrelated to education,” said Remy, who noted the NCAA was still considering its options regarding a potential appeal.
|Judge Finds the NCAA Violated Antitrust Laws … Again
Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a prior case brought on behalf of college athletes who claimed the NCAA used their names and likenesses in video games and broadcast footage without permission and improperly capped the aid they could receive at levels below the actual cost to attend college.
In the earlier case, Wilken found that the cap on aid violated antitrust laws and ordered the NCAA to increase its scholarship caps to cover the full cost of attendance. She also ordered the NCAA to allow member schools to pay athletes up to $5,000 in additional licensing revenue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the $5,000-payment portion of the ruling in September 2017, finding that the payment would strike at the heart of the NCAA's amateur model.
Friday's ruling from Wilken keeps in place NCAA limits on cash-type payments, but frees up schools to increase benefits “related to the pursuit of various academic studies.” The NCAA, meanwhile, suggested that Wilken's latest ruling was out of line with the earlier Ninth Circuit decision.
“That decision held that the rules governing college athletics would be better developed outside the courtroom, including rules around the education-related support that schools provide,” Remy said.
|What's an Amateur, Anyway?
While Wilken's ruling stopped short of forcing a free-market, professional sports-type approach to player compensation on the NCAA, she did criticize the NCAA's lack of a formal definition of amateurism, a principle the organization claims is central to its success in drawing in fans.
“The 'Principle of Amateurism,' as described in the current version of the NCAA's constitution, uses the word 'amateurs' to describe the amateurism principle, and is thus circular. It does not mention compensation or payment,” Wilken wrote. She also noted that the NCAA offered no “coherent” explanation of the “pay for play” model it seeks to avoid, especially since the types and amount of total benefits to college athletes have gone up since her prior ruling and there has been no loss of audience or revenue in major college sports.
She wrote, “The only common thread underlying all forms and amounts of currently permissible compensation is that the NCAA has decided to allow it.”
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 AllLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
Litigators of the Week: $284M and Counting From Elite Universities Accused of Price-Fixing
Voir Dire for Beginners: 2 Southwestern Law Alums Give Students an Intro to Jury Selection
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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