Are College Sports About To Change In Ways We Don't Understand?

[Tugg Speedman]

Saw this story yesterday.  Two relevant passages:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9551518/ncaa-shuts-site-jersey-sales-says-hypocritical

NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday said college sports' governing body would stop selling individual jerseys and other team-related memorabilia on its website, calling the practice a "mistake" and admitting others might view it as hypocritical.

and

The NCAA is involved in multiple lawsuits regarding the use of names and likeness of college athletes. A group of current and former student-athletes, headed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, is attempting to have a federal lawsuit against the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co. classified as class action. The plaintiffs claim their names and likeness are being used illegally in live broadcasts and video games because they're not being compensated for the use.

----------

Ok, I'm going to make some statements here, tell where you agree and disagree ...

The O'Bannon lawsuit, if he wins, will be the biggest thing to happen to the NCAA since its founding.  

By saying athletes will be granted licensing rights essentially means they can get paid for their name on jerseys, in video games.  This paves the way for players to get paid for meet/greets, autographs, etc.  They can even do commercials (listening to MU games on the stream you hear Aurora health commercials a million times saying they can help you "get back in the game."  Otule would be the perfect pitchman, and put a few shekels in his pocket for his trouble.  How about Ox pitching Ford trucks for the dealers that advertise on MU games?)

If the NCAA loses the licensing case, the rest falls away and boosters will create a "player payment fund."  Again, O'Bannon wins and it will be impossible to stop this.

It also means big-time coaches lose.  If these rules did not exists, then a marquee player like Andrew Wiggins could sign multi-million clothing and shoe deals in high school.  And what if lesser player like Athletic DNA and/or Puma want to break in the market by throwing millions at Wiggins in High School (presumably so he wears their products all the way to the NBA all-star and NBA championship MVP years later).  Now he goes to Kansas, a Nike school.  Contractually he cannot play in Nike and Self has a deal to have his players wear Nike.  What gives here?  My guess is Self needs Wiggins more than Wiggins needs Self so Self's Nike deal crashes and he loses serious income.  The only reason coaches can get shoe deals now is because the players cannot.  Once plays can get their own deals (like NBA players), coaches lose.  They are then like NBA coaches that have no such deal.

Calipari is done.  Or, the one and done is over.  His players will legally get paid too much to stay so he cannot keep getting the same top class every year.  Remember when it is legal to pay players the open biding process means Kentucky players get many times more under an open deal then they are currently getting under the table.  And thy can get multi-year deals.   So top recruits cannot assume the current studs on the floor leave early.  They are getting paid too much to stay in college.

Again these are just thoughts, but I'm thinking the entire business model of the NCAA/ESPN/BCS/etc blows up if O'Bannon wins and players can not only get paid, but potentially get paid millions to play college basketball and football.

Where am I right and wrong?

[GGGG]

The entire thing is a slippery slope.  It would be one thing for the NCAA to set up some sort of "Players Fund" and share licensing $$ with the players in video game, jersey sales, etc. 

However, the line between "paying someone to provide a signature" and "paying someone to come here...and sign a few things" is a thin one.  In the example above, what if the Ford dealer above is a booster?  What if he meets the player during the recruiting process and says "Hey, if you come here I will sign you to do a commercial for $25,000."

Perhaps the NCAA could create a rule that allows players to earn up to $10,000 annually off their likeness.  They could do commercials, autograph signings, etc. but have it under the regulation of the NCAA and monitored by the athletic departments.  I wouldn't have much of a problem with that.

[Dawson Rental]

Where am I right and wrong?

 1. If the NCAA loses the O'Bannon case, it seems to me that the NCAA would likely stop licensing the names and likenesses of student-athletes while continuing the ban on the student-athletes doing it themselves.  The NCAA sees a drop in income without giving allowing SA's the chance to pick up the income themselves.  The NCAA could even have SA's give up their licensing rights to the NCAA in the LOI.  Emmert's statement that using SA's likenesses was a "mistake" makes the NCAA use of student-athletes likenesses based on a grant of this right to the NCAA in the LOI unlikely.  Evidently, the NCAA has some awareness that they may be opening the door for the SA's to earn their own income, if they're not careful.

 2. I don't see how the way would be paved for players to do meet and greets, sign autographs, or do commercials for cash.

 3. Even if SA's have the right to make money off their name as high schoolers (including shoe contracts), they still almost certainly have to deal with high school athletic associations prohibitions against professionalism.

 4. Calipari would not be done.  Top players are not likely to earn enough from outside sources of income to keep them from pursuing the far higher income to be had from a salary and greater outside income opportunities they would have as pros.

[NavinRJohnson]

So be it. NCAA's so called 'amateurism' has been a sham for years and everybody knows it.

Personally, I don't think the whole Jay Bilas jersey thing, or more specifically, the NCAA's reaction to it is getting anywhere near the attention or coverage it warrants. That is  a huge story, exposing in a very concrete way what many (myself included) have been complaining about for years, with the NCAA now more or less admitting to it.

If the result of all that was pointed out above is a minor (though still significant) tweak that allows players to get their piece of the pie, great. If the result is a full on move to a free market system, and it means the end of college athletics as we know it, as I said, so be it. It will save me from the admittedly irreconcilable position of criticizing the system on the one hand, all the while continuing to support it with my money and attention on the other. It's professional sports. Time for the NCAA to stop pretending otherwise.

[forgetful]

This case is a slippery slope.  A lot of students not just athletes end up doing a grant of rights to the University, where the university profits off their name, likeness and work product (work for hire).  Can every student that is portrayed in the 'University' commercials sue for using their name or likeness, since they are never asked for permission (part of the grant of rights).

I agree with Murs, that if they do lose, they will just quit using the names and likenesses.  Out of curiosity, when did they start using the athletes names in video games?

[Brewtown Andy]

Calipari is done.  Or, the one and done is over.  His players will legally get paid too much to stay so he cannot keep getting the same top class every year.  Remember when it is legal to pay players the open biding process means Kentucky players get many times more under an open deal then they are currently getting under the table.  And thy can get multi-year deals.   So top recruits cannot assume the current studs on the floor leave early.  They are getting paid too much to stay in college.

It won't end one and done, because that's an NBA rule. If players can start getting endorsement deals, I would have to figure that the contracts would have bonuses for NBA draft positioning, right? Would a player like Vander Blue stay in school because he was getting a bit of money from sponsorships of some kind and said deals gave him bonuses for being a top 5/top 15/first round/second round pick?

[Tugg Speedman]

My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

[Tugg Speedman]

It won't end one and done, because that's an NBA rule. If players can start getting endorsement deals, I would have to figure that the contracts would have bonuses for NBA draft positioning, right? Would a player like Vander Blue stay in school because he was getting a bit of money from sponsorships of some kind and said deals gave him bonuses for being a top 5/top 15/first round/second round pick?

If Vander had deals that made him, say $100k a year (likeness deals, jersey deals, commercials, meet/greets, autograph signing session, etc.), then yes, his agent would have advised him to stay as going to the NBA would be a money losing deal.

Oh, and if O'Bannon wins, the other thing that will fall is the ban on Agents.  Players will be signing with IMG (or Jay-Z) in high School to represent them in the recruiting process.  Like I said above, if O'Bannon wins, as O'Bannon is arguing, everything changes.

[Les Nessman]

As for the jerseys, couldn't the NCAA just ban putting player names on the jerseys and not have to deal with that portion of the problem at all.

[GGGG]

As for the jerseys, couldn't the NCAA just ban putting player names on the jerseys and not have to deal with that portion of the problem at all.

They don't have the name on them.

The problem was that if you went to the NCAA store and searched on a name, then the right jersey came up.

[Les Nessman]

Gotcha.

[GooooMarquette]

My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

I'm not following the case...but even if the court said that O'Bannon has the exclusive right to sell his likeness, it wouldn't mean that the NCAA would have to allow him to play, does it?  Players have been prevented from playing in the NCAA for years of they're deemed not to be "amateurs," so it would seem that the NCAA would only have to amend its definition to make it clear that you're no longer an amateur if you've made money selling your likeness.  In essence telling O'Bannon -- "go ahead, sell your likeness...but you aren't playing at UCLA if you do."

Seems like the only change would be that others can't sell or use the likeness until the player is gone....

[damuts222]

If players are allowed to make a certain amount using their likeness, etc whose going to ensure they don't make more than Sultan's example of $10,000, the NCAA??  They have a hard enough time as it is running themselves.

[GGGG]

My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

You are taking this further than it will go.  Everyone has a right to their name already.  

The O'Bannon case is about using an avatar that *looks* like O'Bannon...without actually referring to the player by name.  If he wins, it will mean payouts, but it isn't going to substantially change NCAA rules.  The issue is that the NCAA earns $$$ from the likeness...but it doesn't mean that the SA can now use their likeness to earn $$ and break NCAA rules in the process.

For instance, this isn't all of the sudden going to make it OK for Johnny Manziel to sign autographs.  He still is bound by the rules of the NCAA.

[GGGG]

I'm not following the case...but even if the court said that O'Bannon has the exclusive right to sell his likeness, it wouldn't mean that the NCAA would have to allow him to play, does it?  Players have been prevented from playing in the NCAA for years of they're deemed not to be "amateurs," so it would seem that the NCAA would only have to amend its definition to make it clear that you're no longer an amateur if you've made money selling your likeness.  In essence telling O'Bannon -- "go ahead, sell your likeness...but you aren't playing at UCLA if you do."

You got the jist of it.

The issue here is that the NCAA made money selling O'Bannon's likeness.

[Tugg Speedman]

You are taking this further than it will go.  Everyone has a right to their name already.  

The O'Bannon case is about using an avatar that *looks* like O'Bannon...without actually referring to the player by name.  If he wins, it will mean payouts, but it isn't going to substantially change NCAA rules.  The issue is that the NCAA earns $$$ from the likeness...but it doesn't mean that the SA can now use their likeness to earn $$ and break NCAA rules in the process.

For instance, this isn't all of the sudden going to make it OK for Johnny Manziel to sign autographs.  He still is bound by the rules of the NCAA.

This is the AAU all over again from the 1970s.  They had similar rules to the NCAA about restricting income.  When they lost in court and all the rules came crashing down, the Olympics was then forced to accept professional athletes.

If O'Bannon wins, we will not be where I suggest the next day, but we will be headed down that road and wind up with pros playing in college.

[forgetful]

My understanding of the O'Bannon case is he is arguing players have the right to their likeness and earn money off it.  If the court rules O'Bannon is correct, it doesn't matter what the NCAA says.  The court said I can sell my likeness and license my name for cash (on jerseys), the NCAA is shut out of the process.

My personal time (meet/greet) and signature (paid for autographs) are just an extension of my "likeness", as is my voice and image (doing Ford commercials).  That's why these will fall soon after if O'Bannon wins.  If the court rules as I understand, Pandora's box is open and the NCAA cannot close it ... the court is arguing it is illegal from them to close it.

That's why I said this could change the NCAA in ways we cannot understand.  They become professional athletes and the higest bidder wins.

I don't see how this could possibly transpire as you describe as it would have significant ramifications beyond NCAA sports, instances where case law is well documented.  

I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand all the details.  It may just require a change in how they write the LOI's.

The main thing I am referring to is graduate students, who, as I understand it, fall under work for hire laws.  That means they sign a document when they arrive indicating that any fruits of their labor, even if conducted outside the confines of the University, are University property.  That means an engineer working out of his basement that makes a discovery even remotely related to his studies does not own the rights to their work product.

Similarly, these grad students are prohibited from pursuing any additional work, even if it occurs in their freetime.  This is part of the stipulation of their LOI equivalent and is well supported by case law.

An athlete's likeness and marketing prowess is a direct result of their work product (a student athelete), thus the University and the NCAA can retain the right to that product.  Also, the University is well within its rights to stipulate that they can not participate in outside employment (i.e. marketing) as a part of their LOI.

The question is if this would require them to provide an additional stipend, if so, look for a minimal cost of living stipend ($2000 ish per semester) to be provided by the University/NCAA, paid for of course by the athletes likeness.

[Jay Bee]

Good grief, some of you guys have no understanding of the background of this case and the specific issues (which have changed when the ambulance chaser Hausfeld needed to change the subject).

[dgies9156]

For what it is worth, the NCAA is where Major League Baseball was in 1973. There was a storm brewing -- the reserve clause -- and baseball could elect to either change its ways and regulate free agency and player movement or the courts could.

Major League Baseball put its head in the sand and the rest is history.

The NCAA is at the same crossroads. Either it acknowledges the O'Bannon case is a serious threat to its hegemony over college basketball and makes changes that are more favorable to college sports, or the athletes will do it for them. The NCAA may even win the O'Bannon case, but there is more coming behind it and inevitably the time date and place will come where someone finds a way to beat down the status quo.

In MLB it was Catfish Hunter followed closely by Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally. In basketball, it's Ed O'Bannon or maybe someone we haven't heard about. But be forewarned, the tide is turning and the NCAA sooner or later will be compelled to change. If it's smart, it grabs hold of the matter and regulates it. Otherwise, lookout!

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't see how this could possibly transpire as you describe as it would have significant ramifications beyond NCAA sports, instances where case law is well documented.  

I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand all the details.  It may just require a change in how they write the LOI's.

The main thing I am referring to is graduate students, who, as I understand it, fall under work for hire laws.  That means they sign a document when they arrive indicating that any fruits of their labor, even if conducted outside the confines of the University, are University property.  That means an engineer working out of his basement that makes a discovery even remotely related to his studies does not own the rights to their work product.

Similarly, these grad students are prohibited from pursuing any additional work, even if it occurs in their freetime.  This is part of the stipulation of their LOI equivalent and is well supported by case law.

An athlete's likeness and marketing prowess is a direct result of their work product (a student athelete), thus the University and the NCAA can retain the right to that product.  Also, the University is well within its rights to stipulate that they can not participate in outside employment (i.e. marketing) as a part of their LOI.

The question is if this would require them to provide an additional stipend, if so, look for a minimal cost of living stipend ($2000 ish per semester) to be provided by the University/NCAA, paid for of course by the athletes likeness.

How much did Harvard make off of Facebook?  Zuckerberg used all their resources, students, got the name (Harvard dorms each issued a paper "facebook" to its residences where he got the name) and even the school itself to create it.  Last time I checked, Harvard was not the owner of Facebook.

How about Stanford?  At the Tech peak it was estimated that $1 trillion (with a "t") of tech companies where started by students at Stanford while attending Standford, many of them graduate students.  In fact many went to Stanford because they knew they could hook up with other Stanford students, exploit University resources to create a company and get rich.  Some did not even stick around long enough to graduate.  This is why Silicon valley is located where it is, because of its strong ties to Stanford.  Hewlett Packard Sun Microsystems (which literally stands for "Stanford University Network"), Yahoo, Cisco, Google, 3com are just a few http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21846847/stanford-grads-companies-combined-equals-10th-largest-economy  Last time I checked, Stanford did not have a trillion dollar endowment.

Ditto non-compete clauses.  Courts are very willing to water them down, or even eliminate them.

Back to our subject ...

As pointed out above, the AAU and MLB also restricted its athletes for much of the same reasons the NCAA uses.  They were both forced to change, and dragged into it screaming and kicking. So, what is happening with the O'Bannon case is not a revolution, but an evolution.  It's just the next one too fall.

[Tugg Speedman]

 8/08/2013 @ 9:30AM

The O'Bannon Case: A Golden Opportunity For College Sports Programs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2013/08/08/the-obannon-case-a-golden-opportunity-for-college-sports-programs/

It's widely predicted that, if the plaintiffs prevail in the so-called "O'Bannon case," it will radically transform the culture of college athletic programs and may even spell the end of amateur sports as we know it. As one blogger put it, it will "blow the current model of revenue-sharing in major college athletics to kingdom come."

The case in question dates back to 2009 when former college athletes spearhead by UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and Arizona State University quarterback Samuel Keller filed class actions against the NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts (EA), and Collegiate Licensing Company, the leading collegiate trademark licensing/marketing firm, claiming their likenesses had been misappropriated without compensation.

The forecasts are not fanciful. A pro-plaintiff outcome would force a major concession on the NCAA and possibly lead to further revenue-sharing across the board in the years ahead. At the very least, a plaintiffs' win will breach the hitherto sacrosanct barrier against compensating athletes. Once breached, things could happen fast, as when free agency realigned the balance of power in professional sports overnight, creating successive generations of multi-millionaire utility infielders. If certified, the O'Bannon class would include thousands of claimants, including many star professionals, and exposure in the billions.

Equally to the point, what happens if the defense ultimately prevails? The answer lies not just in the impact of this one case, but in the climate of public opinion that surrounds it. Win or lose, O'Bannon and his co-plaintiffs have given the NCAA's critics a powerfully invigorated voice. The Internet swelled that voice to a din. Joe Nocera has gone on full-scale attack in a series of articles. Gregg Easterbrook is writing a book.

Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim Delany has predicted the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the defendants have already flinched a mite. Most recently, the NCAA severed ties to EA while Collegiate Licensing asked the judge to strike all allegations pertaining to products other than video games and game broadcasts. Especially if the case settles, the NCAA will need to shore up its fortifications against future claims that go beyond video marketing – product endorsements by athletes, for example, or competitive salary deals that were unthinkable a few years ago but are now deemed inevitable by critics like Nocera.

Settlement may not be an option for the defense if we believe O'Bannon himself, who avers he's not interested in a financial award but rather in "systemic change" he intends to pursue to the end. Meanwhile, recent court decisions can't be encouraging to the defense. In late July, for example, EA was dealt a blow when the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the use of the likenesses was not shielded by the First Amendment. The athletes' lawyer said that that defense "was one of their strongest," so he's now moving for summary judgment in the underlying case.

When, in May, the Third Circuit said in a case brought by former Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart that the defendant's First Amendment rights do pertain but could be trumped by the plaintiff's intellectual property rights, the court was implicitly affirming that the athletes actually have such rights. It's a point that likely resonates with the vast majority of college sports fans.

To be sure, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle in terms of public opinion, to a far greater extent than in past instances when the NCAA came under fire. On the one hand, scandals like Penn State have fueled perceptions that college sports in general are morally dysfunctional, while published articles are marshaling long lists of players and the specific injustices and abuses they've purportedly suffered.

"Certainly, in its day-to-day business, from enforcement to apparel sales, it seems that of late the NCAA cannot do anything right," says Timothy Liam Epstein, a partner at SmithAmundsen LLC and Chair of that firm's Sports Law Practice Group. As an example, Epstein notes the most recent controversy involving the now-disabled function on the NCAA online shop allowing customers to purchase a numbered, but not named, jersey of Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel.

On the other hand, as NCAA critics have strenuously argued, the public need not be swayed by schools crying poverty or by the argument that amateur status is necessary to maintain some sort of parity between programs – not when some colleges already pay their coaches millions while others can barely afford bus tickets for their recruiters.

The argument that the public appreciates amateur status, and that that has a lot to do with why they watch college sports in the first place, has more validity than NCAA critics allow. Only 27% of respondents to a Marist poll believe college athletes deserve to be paid beyond their scholarships. Yet it's a limited argument. More than anything else, the public appreciates fairness and equitability. They are quite aware, thank you, that college sports is big business; that some folks enjoy lavish profits because of the unpaid labor of others. If they resent overpaid professional athletes, that too is a question of equitability. People want athletes to get what they deserve: no more, no less.

The NCAA's problem is that its historic position has been compromised such that an ongoing groundswell of public opinion will likely encourage future litigation. It's one more example of how, in our society, some change can only be brought about by ambitious lawyers.

In this instance, there may also be powerful agents of change once those lawyers clear the path – namely, the schools themselves, some of which have reportedly questioned whether they even need the NCAA. "Many of the bylaws that frustrate the wealthiest schools are based on the NCAA's legislating competitive fairness – from what food schools can provide to student-athletes, to the amount of scholarships allowable on rosters," says Epstein.

"Perhaps the largest conferences will realize that they no longer need the NCAA to successfully function," he adds. "They could break off into a new association, possibly adding significant staffing to conference offices to handle logistical functions currently performed at the NCAA National Office."

At least the schools don't need to be NCAA mouthpieces. They can, as a communications strategy, underscore that they do not share the plantation mentality, a term that's been used to describe NCAA policy and practice.

In this effort, there's no need to pick an injudicious public fight. To the contrary, the schools can seize on every opportunity that the NCAA itself provides. For example, NCAA president Mark Emmert has already allowed colleges to offer four-year scholarships that in effect end the current abuse by which coaches can summarily cut athletes from the roster on an annual basis.

There are many ways for schools to differentiate themselves. It's not about perquisites; it's about basic terms of engagement that directly affect college and professional careers. Jim Delany – while no supporter of paying the athletes – talks about limits on the time athletes spend on sports, for example, as well as lifetime educational support for athletes who drop out or go pro early, but decide to return to college. Simply by vigorously supporting such ideas or by proposing alternatives, schools take leadership positions that won't be lost on the recruits they so aggressively scout.

It's a potentially transformative opportunity for which colleges throughout the country can thank Ed O'Bannon.

[Tugg Speedman]

O'Bannon is trying to get certified as a class action.  Then he will represent literally thousands of previous athletes that had their likenesses used.  If he wins, universities will owe past athletes billions for using their likenesses.  Sounds like the certification is going to happen.

If O'Bannon gets certified and wins, Will MU owe players like George Thompson, Jim Chrones, Mo Lucas, Butch Lee, Jerome Whitehead, Doc Rivers, Tony Smith, Jim Mac, Dwayne Wade, the three Amigos, Vander Blue and many others millions in damages for using their likenesses?

It could bankrupt many of the storied NCAA programs.  Schools like Michigan and Texas could owe tens and tens of million to its past football and basketball players.


-------------

Judge in Ed O'Bannon case cancels Sept. 5 hearing, rejects NCAA request

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/08/judge_in_ed_obannon_case_cance.html

The judge in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit today canceled a Sept. 5 hearing and rejected the NCAA's request for an expedited case management conference, deciding instead to rule on several motions by the defendants through written filings.

With a certification decision nearing in a case involving the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses, the NCAA and co-defendants Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company filed motions last week in response to the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The NCAA and EA each sought from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken the opportunity to be dismissed from the case. CLC asked to have portions of the amended complaint dismissed and wants to remove four of the five active college players who joined the suit last month.

After EA's request, Wilken set a Sept. 5 hearing and pre-hearing filing dates. The NCAA sought to have the hearing Aug. 22 and cited inconsistencies between several dates in the case management schedule.

Wilken ordered the parties to file a joint status statement by Aug. 19. She noted that she ordered the parties at the June 20 certification hearing to discuss between themselves the remaining case management dates.
"The NCAA does not state whether it has tried to work with the other parties to resolve this or any other case management issues that it has identified," Wilken wrote today. "In their response, Antitrust Plaintiffs represent that the inconsistency has not been raised with them and that they would be amenable to making adjustments to address such problems."

At stake is whether Wilken certifies the suit as a class action. That would potentially make the NCAA liable for billions of dollars in damages if it lost the case at trial.

[Daniel]

If a fund is ever set up, and I hope not, then it should be distributed after a player graduates.

[barfolomew]

General question for any MU Law graduates:

If Judge Wilken denies the suit class action status, but O'Bannon & Co. win at trial, what does that mean for any future suits brought by former SAs? Can it be deemed a class action by another judge at any time in future, or will some precedent have been set requiring future cases to be tried individually?

[Dawson Rental]

General question for any MU Law graduates:

If Judge Wilken denies the suit class action status, but O'Bannon & Co. win at trial, what does that mean for any future suits brought by former SAs? Can it be deemed a class action by another judge at any time in future, or will some precedent have been set requiring future cases to be tried individually?

Wilken's decision should hold weight with other trial judges, but won't bind them as to their own decisions.  However, as soon as Wilken's decision is appealed (and it will be appealed by whichever party loses it) other trial judges will have a precedent that they will have to follow at least in the circuit whose appellate court issued the appellate decision.  If a judge in another circuit decides differently and is upheld by his own circuit's appellate court, then you have a conflict between the circuits and likely fast track Supreme Court involvement.

I have no class action experience, but this sounds like a classic situation for use of a class action.