O’Bannon marches onward.

We knew the appeal was coming, and so it is.  But even in its inevitability, there’s something so… so NCAA about this:

… 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.”

My guess is that’s where Kessler’s suit is going to wind up, but wouldn’t it be typical if that ruling came down on the NCAA’s appeal?  Maybe somebody should ask Stacey Osburn if she has a comment about that.

About these ads

8 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

8 responses to “O’Bannon marches onward.

  1. Lrgk9

    Oh, but those wheels that turn so slowly do indeed grind finely.

  2. Hogbody Spradlin

    The financial cap was kinda legislating from the bench.

    • Not exactly. Wilken accepted the NCAA’s argument that there is a certain level where player payment would negatively impact the ability of schools to promote the sport. That’s what I expect Kessler to attack at his trial.

      • 69Dawg

        Yes. I felt the judge was throwing the NCAA a life line. I guess we should have known they would be too stupid to grab it.

      • James

        One thing I don’t understand: why do the courts need to protect the NCAA’s right to promote and support college football?

        I know I’m missing something there, but how is this different than a restaurant saying they can’t pay their workers, because if they do pay their workers, it will negatively impact and prevent them from promoting and supporting their business?

        • Keep in mind, you’re not talking about one restaurant here. College football is comprised of schools and conferences that are colluding to fix the price they pay student-athletes. That’s illegal, unless the schools can show that they have to do it to preserve the business model. Wilken accepted the argument in part that such is the case.

          • James

            Gotcha. But I’m still disconnected: why do NCAA member schools have a legal right to break anti-trust law in order to preserve a business model?

  3. Gaskilldawg

    BV lawyers such as yours truly would have advised the NCAA long before trial to settle on terms it could live with. Good thing the really smart, Ivy League AV lawyers were advising the NCAA.