semi-OT: Big case against NCAA starts today

[ragtimejoe1]

Ed O'Bannon vs UCLA/NCAA antitrust lawsuit. This is a huge can of worms if ruled in favor of O'Bannon.

My understanding, and I think it is a compelling argument, that it is a violation of federal antitrust laws to sell images, likeness, etc. in broadcasts, games, etc. without consent of the players and while profiting hugely from it. At the same time, the NCAA specifically limits the players' ability to do the same with their own image.

I'm not sure who is right here. I know a player victory is not the best for college athletics, but I need read more about this. I kind of understand the argument the players have on this. Nonetheless, interesting times in college sports right now. Unfortunately, it is to the detriment of college sports.

 

[Bryoming]

I find it hilarious that a nobody that no one remembers is the key cog to this lawsuit. O'Bannon is a money grubbing clown. He does bring some issues to light that should be looked at, but he thinks way more of himself than anyone else ever did or ever will.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

I remember him. He, his brother, and Tyus Edny. They were fun to watch.

Oscar Robertson is also involved. He's kind of a big deal.

The way I understand it is that they believe former athletes upon graduation should be compensated for the use of their image and likeness once they are gone. I don't see an argument against that to be honest.

**edit** It appears he has changed his mind since 2011. It's no longer just about post-graduation, he thinks athletes should get paid.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I find it hilarious that a nobody that no one remembers is the key cog to this lawsuit. O'Bannon is a money grubbing clown. He does bring some issues to light that should be looked at, but he thinks way more of himself than anyone else ever did or ever will.

You are giving O'Bannon too much credit. Plaintiff's lawyers often actively seek any Plaintiff (no matter how remote or removed) just in order to certify a class. I doubt it was so much of O'Bannon as it was the attorneys. O'Bannon will only get his share of any judgement while the attorneys will take a cut from the entire class.

Although I do remember O'Bannon and Tyus Edney from their great run in the NCAA tournament in the 90's.

 

[MrTitleist]

https://twitter.com/slmandel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stewart Mandel is live-tweeting the trial.

 

[Wyo2dal]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/476049934622277632[/tweet]

Makes me laugh

 

[ragtimejoe1]

That is a good quote and it kind of reminds me of kids preparing for professional school. Often, they must do all sorts of volunteer work and spend summers interning (low wages or no wages). They spend a tremendous amount of time each week on course work and extracurricular activities to make themselves attractive to professional school selection committees.

However, I also understand these students don't bring in billions of dollars to the NCAA or the affiliated institutions. Still, the workload complaint is laughable. Not being able to sell your own image or autograph is an interesting point, however.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

Yes, the difference isn't the workload. The difference is the money made off of the athlete, often directly. Universities do not profit from students spending summers interning or practicing for their play.

I think a free education is more than enough compensation for this until I see schools encouraging athletes to major in certain programs (interdisciplinary studies) and take certain classes (underwater basking weaving) because they fit in better with grades/practice schedules. At that point, the free education I used to see as a sweet deal is a worthless pile of shit.

The tutoring programs most athletic departments have are not set in place to help a student reach his/her academic or professional goals either. They are there to ensure eligibility, let's not kid ourselves.