海角大神

In a win for the college sports industry which has been fighting efforts to strengthen student athletes鈥� rights, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can legally prevent colleges from compensating their athletes over and above the cost of attendance. 聽聽

College sports have created an economic powerhouse, thanks to TV broadcast deals and merchandising. But with greater revenue comes greater frustration by student athletes, who often don鈥檛 see a single penny for use of their likenesses.

Simply put, the appeals court said that paying for college and its associated costs 鈥� and nothing else 鈥� is legally sufficient.

This latest ruling upholds part of a federal judge鈥檚 ruling in 2014 that found the NCAA violated antitrust laws, and that its practices have gone too far in the name of preserving amateurism. However, Wednesday's Ninth Court ruling did throw out a proposal that the NCAA permit colleges to 鈥減ay athletes $5,000 per year in deferred compensation,鈥� .

鈥淚 would say this is a huge victory for the NCAA,鈥� Gabe Feldman, a professor at Tulane University鈥檚 law school, told the Times. 鈥淭here was some question about the future of the amateurism model and at least for now, a majority of this panel of the Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed the NCAA鈥檚 amateurism model and their definition of amateurism.鈥�

In 2009, former UCLA basketball star Ed O鈥橞annon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA for their use of his likeness in television broadcasts and video games, arguing that he was entitled to some of the subsequent revenue.

But the NCAA strongly believes that paying student athletes would be fundamentally counterintuitive to the purpose of higher education. The organization says a model of 鈥渁mateurism,鈥� in which athletes are not treated as professionals, is crucial to keeping focus on schoolwork. But as 海角大神 reported, the amateurism model is not altruistic.

The that paying student athletes makes them employees of the university, and would shatter the notion and the idea of amateur athletics, according to a PBS 'Frontline' examination. They contend that college athletics revolves around the spirit of competition and an athlete agreeing to participate in intercollegiate sports is exchanging the gift of a free or highly reduced cost of a college education for the privilege of competing, according to the report.

But Mr. Oliver dug deeper and took the argument back all the way to the 1950s, where he explained Walter Byers, the then-executive director of the NCAA, put forth the as a means for universities to avoid covering athletes for workplace compensation, which was also profiled in an Atlantic Magazine story.

, this recent ruling does not mean the game is over for the debate and litigation surrounding college sports. Previous cases have argued that under federal labor law, football players may unionize. That argument may still have a lifeline.聽

One of those cases, spearheaded by the lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, essentially seeks a free market for athletes in top football and Division I men鈥檚 basketball programs. Kessler declined to comment Wednesday on the Ninth Circuit鈥檚 ruling. That case is expected to be remanded to a federal district court in New Jersey, where, in turn, any eventual appeal would go to a different circuit court.

At a basic level, Wednesday鈥檚 Ninth Circuit ruling should give such a case hope, since an alternative would have been to find that, as the NCAA insisted, rules restricting compensation are justified under antitrust law.