Appeals court rules: no compensation for college athletes
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit聽said that paying for college and its associated costs is legally sufficient. Is this the endgame for college athletes pursuing compensation for the use of their likenesses?聽
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit聽said that paying for college and its associated costs is legally sufficient. Is this the endgame for college athletes pursuing compensation for the use of their likenesses?聽
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� according to The New York Times.
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.
As the Times notes, 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