<p>Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court in Oakland has ruled that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law by colluding on player compensation. She issued an injunction against rules that prohibit athletes from being paid for the use of their names and images. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Before the Court in this case is only whether the NCAA violates antitrust law by agreeing with its member schools to restrain their ability to compensate Division I men’s basketball and FBS football players any more than the current association rules allow. For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that this restraint does violate antitrust law. </p>
<p>To the extent other criticisms have been leveled against the NCAA and college policies and practices, those are not raised and cannot be remedied based on the antitrust causes of action in this lawsuit. It is likely that the challenged restraints, as well as other perceived inequities in college athletics and higher education generally, could be better addressed as a policy matter by reforms other than those available as a remedy for the antitrust violation found here. Such reforms and remedies could be undertaken by the NCAA, its member schools and conferences, or Congress.
<p>Under the ruling, schools can create trust funds to pay players after they leave school, but the NCAA can cap the payments to a player’s fund at $5,000 per year. </p>
<p>Having caps in place will limit the “bidding” (at least among the big 5 conferences). However, this next part is also big news:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The power conferences have been trying to get NCAA approval for “full cost of attending” payments, and in fact, just got approval the day before this ruling.</p>
<p>Overall, it looks like the NCAA dodge a bullet, as it could have gone far worse (such as NO Limits on compensation). </p>
<p>So much for MACTION. Those schools already subsidize their ADs with millions in student fees. Eventually that will hit its limit, and many of them will need to move to less costly forms of football. Big school fans may not care, but losing the littler guys will erode one more thing that keeps college football from just looking like the minor league NFL. </p>
<p>If we look at how much money is being made by the schools, I’m not surprised the NCAA lost. The SEC TV contracts surprised me. This lawsuit is the reason you don’t see NCAA basketball video games. O’Bannon saw his likeness being used in one of the games’ classic teams modes and wondered why he hadn’t received some compensation for the use.
.</p>
<p>In August 2008, the SEC announced an unprecedented 15-year television contract with CBS worth an estimated $55 million a year.</p>
<p>In the same month, the league also announced another landmark television contract with ESPN worth $2.25 billion or $150 million a year for the life of the contract, which is for fifteen years.</p>
<p>The SEC has the highest tv contracts and this is only for football and doesn’t include radio or basketball tv/radio contracts, endorsements such as Nike, tshirts and other items they sell.</p>
<p>It’s fine with me if fewer schools get into/remain in the minor league football business. There are lots of other sports that provide a great experience to players. In my wildest dreams, more of the smaller schools quit trying to become Alabama and adopt more of a Div III model where sports are one kind of valuable student involvement.</p>
<p>That’s the rational answer, and it makes long-run sense, but as an alum of a MAC school I will mourn the day when it is no longer financially viable for my alma mater to compete against the best teams and beat them occasionally. </p>