O’Bannon v. NCAA: Judge Claudia Wilken wrote “unreasonably restrain trade”
Judge Claudia Wilken wrote “the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade.” Donald Remy said “We disagree with the Court’s decision that NCAA rules violate antitrust laws.”
Published Aug 8, 2014 to Aug 10, 2014.
The record
- Decided
- August 8, 2014U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
- Docket
- No. C 09-3329 CWU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
- Trial
- June 9, 2014 to June 27, 2014 (non-jury)U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
- Judgment
- Findings of fact and conclusions of law (Doc. 291) and permanent injunction (Doc. 292), both filed the same dayU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
Quotes
The court
Judge Claudia Wilken, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
Plaintiffs contend that these rules violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The NCAA denies this charge and asserts that its restrictions on student-athlete compensation are necessary to uphold its educational mission and to protect the popularity of collegiate sports.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
Order, via govinfo.gov (U.S. Government Publishing Office)
Judge Claudia Wilken, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
College sports generate a tremendous amount of interest, as well as revenue and controversy. Interested parties have strong and conflicting opinions about the best policies to apply in regulating these sports.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
Order, via govinfo.gov (U.S. Government Publishing Office)
Judge Claudia Wilken, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
the Court finds that the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools. The procompetitive justifications that the NCAA offers do not justify this restraint and could be achieved through less restrictive means.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
Order, via govinfo.gov (U.S. Government Publishing Office)
Judge Claudia Wilken, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
Prohibit deferred compensation in an amount of $5,000 per year or less (in 2014 dollars) for the licensing or use of prospective, current, or former Division I men's basketball and Football Bowl Subdivision football players' names, images, and likenesses through a trust fund payable upon expiration of athletic eligibility or graduation, whichever comes first
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
Order, via govinfo.gov (U.S. Government Publishing Office)
The plaintiffs
Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP and lead counsel for plaintiffs
The decision was a well-reasoned rebuke to the NCAA's exploitation. No longer can the NCAA hide behind the fiction of amateurism to deny the benefits well deserved by the young players who are the heart and soul of the enterprise.
Release, via Lawdragon; the press release of Hausfeld LLP
Ed O'Bannon, Lead plaintiff
This is a game-changer for college athletes, both current and former.
Ed O'Bannon, Lead plaintiff
It is only fair that your own name, image and likeness belong to you, regardless of your definition of amateurism.
The NCAA
Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer
We disagree with the Court's decision that NCAA rules violate antitrust laws ... We note that the Court's decision sets limits on compensation, but are reviewing the full decision and will provide further comment later.
Statement published by the NCAA; on its own site, where the article notes it includes information from The Associated Press
Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer
It should be noted that the Court supported several of the NCAA's positions, and we share a commitment to better support student-athletes
Statement published by the NCAA; on its own site, where the article notes it includes information from The Associated Press
Mark Emmert, NCAA president
No one on our legal team or the college conferences' legal teams think this is a violation of antitrust laws and we need to get that settled in the courts.
Associated Press, via FOX Sports; Emmert spoke on ABC's This Week
Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer
We remain confident that the NCAA has not violated the antitrust laws and intend to appeal
Statement published by the NCAA; on its own site, where the article notes it includes information from The Associated Press
Reported by UPI
That the NCAA will be allowed to cap the amount of compensation an athlete can be awarded, as long as the cap is set at or above the cost of attendance.
Wire, via UPI; credited on the page to SportsNetwork.com
Sources
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014 Archived copy
“O'Bannon v. NCAA, No. C 09-3329 CW, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. 291)”
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Aug 8, 2014
“O'Bannon v. NCAA, No. C 09-3329 CW, Permanent Injunction (Doc. 292)”
- NCAA.com, Aug 8, 2014 Archived copy
“NCAA responds to O'Bannon suit ruling”
- Las Vegas Sun, Aug 8, 2014 Archived copy
“Statement from Ed O'Bannon, lead plaintiff in lawsuit versus the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)”
Release published by the Las Vegas Sun; submitted by bd Global (O'Bannon's media representatives), and the Sun says it has not verified or edited it
- Lawdragon, Aug 9, 2014 Archived copy
“Hausfeld Announces Landmark Decision”
- NCAA.com, Aug 10, 2014 Archived copy
“NCAA to appeal O'Bannon ruling”
- UPI, Aug 8, 2014
“Judge in O'Bannon case rules against NCAA”
- FOX Sports, Aug 10, 2014 Archived copy
“Emmert says NCAA will appeal O'Bannon ruling”