To what should be nobody’s surprise, the NCAA is appealing Judge Wilken’s ruling and doing so with its usual class.
The NCAA and a group of major conferences on Friday night asked the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals to overturn a recent ruling that the association’s limits on athlete compensation violate antitrust laws and that the association cannot limit benefits related to education for athletes playing Division I men’s or women’s basketball or Bowl Subdivision football.
In a brief notice of appeal, the NCAA and the conferences wrote that they are seeking review of U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s injunction, her findings of fact and law, her earlier summary judgment ruling “and all other orders, rulings, and decisions in this litigation.”
… On Friday night, the NCAA’s Remy issued a statement that read, in part: “While the District Court upheld the distinction between full-time students who play college sports and professional athletes, it erred by giving itself authority to micromanage decisions about education-related support. We believe, and the Supreme Court has recognized, that NCAA member schools and conferences are best positioned to strengthen and revise their rules to better support student-athletes, rather than forcing these issues into continuous litigation.”
Yeah, how dare a judge rule on an issue she’s already ruled on in a similar way, a ruling that was upheld on appeal?
The thing here is that the NCAA got a win from her on the most important thing to it, and yet, it’s not enough. The NCAA’s gonna NCAA. Always.
15 responses to “Alston appeal: Donald Remy strenuously objects”
They are going to fight until Jeffrey Kessler strikes the match to burn the whole thing to the ground.
What is your proposal for compensating athletes/players? Is it limited to revenue sports or does it apply to any college athlete? Pls be specific.
I don’t have a specific proposal. I just want the NCAA/schools to quit colluding illegally. Student-athletes should be able to negotiate for their compensation just like you and I do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly … for many, the scholarship and the development will be sufficient. For others, it isn’t and shouldn’t be.
Should athletes be paid by the school, or should they just get the benefits of endorsements? Wouldn’t the richest schools be able to dominate the market, creating an uncompetitive environment? What about Title IX, which has been expanded beyond its plain language to require parity in benefits/duties to schools between men and women sports?
Shouldn’t these question be answered before the economic model is fundamentally changed?
They already do.
Right, so isn’t perpetuating this process potentially a problem?
I’m not saying players shouldn’t be paid, but shouldn’t we understand the ramifications of such a move before it’s made?
You can make a bad situation worse by throwing out the bad indiscriminately. Ask Donal Rumsfeld and Dick Chaney.
If that’s your guiding principal, I assume you’re just as concerned about the ramifications of continuing the status quo.
All you guys who want certainty when it comes to predicting the future, tell me how that works exactly. I’ve got a few bets I’d like to place.
There’s a difference between predicting the future and gutting the system without even wanting to understand of the consequences.
If you don’t have a plan or proposal and don’t appear to even want to think about anything that could go wrong, then yes I would vote to stick with the status quo.
If you could propose something specific, or point to it, where the pros and cons have been weighed, then I’m all ears.
When you say “gutting the system”, isn’t that predicting the future?
The status quo violates federal law.
So would you be happy if the NCAA and Conference got and antitrust exemption so as to make it legal?
LOL. Why don’t you ask me that if it actually happens?
I cannot answer for anyone else. My proposal is the same as my proposal for compensating you for youtr job. It is whatever you and your employer work out.
If the SEC decides that Nike may pay a Georgia cross country runnier to wear a Nike shirts on his or her own time as endorsements, fine with me. If the SEC decides that any conference team can pay swimmers cash sums, as long as those cash sums are tethered to education, and the swimmers find those payments sufficient to induce them to enroll at the SEC school of their choice, fine with me.
Besides footbal and basketball, none of the other sports, mens or womens, make money. Foorball and men’s basketball pay for all the other sports.
No school is going to pay any athlete who dosen’t bring in revenue. Why keep any other sport that dosen’t make money and just rechannel to football revenue into getting better football and basketball players? Can you cut women’s sports with Title IX?
Do taxpayers want to subsidize all the non-revenue sports?
The ability to cash in on their likeness would end this thing but the NCAA has apparently got bottomless legal funds and plans a scorched earth policy to the very end. Didn’t work for Hitler and it won’t work for them. It will however postpone the inevitable.