ILNews

NCAA files intent to appeal O'Bannon decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA has notified the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it intends to appeal a judge's ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case that it violated antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled Aug. 8 that the NCAA broke the law by restricting schools from providing money beyond current scholarship limits to athletes. She said schools should be allowed to place up to $5,000 per athlete per year of competition into a trust fund for football players and men's basketball players, which they could collect after leaving school.

A formal appeal has not yet been submitted, but NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy issued a statement Thursday.

"We are appealing the Court's decision because we do not believe the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws," he said. "In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes."

Remy also noted that the NCAA has been discussing ways to improve the "student-athlete experience" even before the lawsuit was filed, and through the recent decision to give the five richest football conferences more power over the rule-making process.

What's unclear is how the NCAA's legal team will attack Wilken's ruling in a court that has traditionally been more favorable to labor, or in this case the athletes. A recent study from the University of Illinois shows the NCAA wins about 71 percent in the second and third rounds in court, and some believe this case could be headed the U.S. Supreme Court. Remy has promised to take it there, if necessary.

Earlier this week, NCAA officials declined an interview request with The Associated Press to discuss the case. But antitrust and labor attorneys believe the NCAA's strongest argument might be against the financial cap, a part of the decision the NCAA initially lauded.

"If she's right that these restrictions are an unreasonable restraint of trade then the cap doesn't make any sense," said Robert McTamaney, an antitrust lawyer with the firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn. "Then student-athletes should be able to negotiate for whatever they can get."

Labor attorney Joseph Farelli, who works for the New York-based law firm of Pitta & Giblin, said the NCAA had to file the appeal.

Otherwise, he noted, it could open the NCAA or its member schools to more potential litigation for athletes who are not receiving additional money, including women's athletes who could cite Title IX law.

"I would expect them to appeal it because now you're going to have a permanent injunction that says the NCAA can't regulate what colleges do with their student-athletes," Farelli said. "If they don't appeal now you have federal court precedent."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT