Shorter NCAA: Since you know our membership is dysfunctional, you need to give us more time to figure out how to deal with your ruling.
Filed under The NCAA
Jurists. They rule every aspect of people’s personal lifes daily for the past several years. No governing body of members, no elected representatives of the people…just jurists. Their supremacy rules America.
Not sure the lady judge put a lot of thought and prescience into collegiate sports history, achievements, goodness overall, and its basic foundations and culture.
Where this ruling takes collegiate sports in the next decade will be very interesting.
My take. The NCAA and universities will get it overturned, and develop their own model and policy re the athletes.
Where does the law require her to consider any of those things? I’m not an antitrust lawyer, so I can’t say one way or the other whether her opinion is likely to get overturned. But if it does, it likely won’t have much to do with the factors you listed.
Actually it does. Once the Judge found that the NCAA rules were a restraint on a relevant market then the law requires the Judge to consider wither that restrain is reasonable considering the market.
You must not have read the opinion. She actually did discuss the history of college sports. That history showed that the NCAA has redefines its mission and redefined amateurism several times in its history. She also discussed the scholarship rules before the Sanity Code of 1948, the repeal of the Sanity Code in 1949, and the creation of athletic scholarships in 1956. She also discussed the changes in permitted benefits under the scholarship rules after 1975 (the rules from 1956 through 1974 permitted schools to give scholarshipped athletes cash stipends monthly.)
Read it. You will find lots of discussion of history of college sports.
She also gave credit to “collegiate sports . . . goodness overall. . . ” She actually found that the educational foundation of college sports allows the NCAA to have limits on compensation in order to preserve the athletes integration into the student community. Had she ignored “collegiate sports . . . goodness overall. . . ” she would have found any caps on compensation for names, images and likenesses unreasonable and in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I still think it’s fair to blame Delany and Corch
“The school most often ridiculed by Sanity Code opponents was Ohio State. Prior to the 1950 Rose Bowl, it was revealed that at least 16 Buckeye football players had cushy jobs with the state, including a running back on the payroll of the state’s transportation department as a tire inspector.
The Sanity Code was going to allow OSU to do that, but not let SEC or Southern Conference schools offer athletic scholarships. It’s easy to see why people got upset.”
I am glad she didn’t look at college “goodness” and instead looked at the law. I agree with you about jurist getting too big for their collective pants though. All too often they want to look at something besides law and will even go so far as to change the meaning of the word “penalty” to “tax” in order to make a law say what it didn’t say.
I was afraid the NCAA was going to win and then countersue the student-athletes for attorney fees.
Bay Area sounds Judge Wilken listens to feed her head whenever she gets a Dear Judge Wilkens urgent clarification special request
Subscribe in a reader