03-26-2024, 06:15 PM
Point of clarification:
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC
NCAA v. Alston established that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships. The NCAA maintained that it prevented the appearance of professionalism. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, and the USSC agreed.
O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged the NCAA's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes (and predated Alston). The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The district judge agreed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, and reversed the ruling in part. The Supreme Court did not hear the case (and interestingly, it was O'Bannon that appealed the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion).
IMHO, the O'Bannon case was particularly egrigious. It's not so much that Ed O'Bannon was seeking to profit from his NIL while in school, so much as the NCAA licensed it out to EA Sports for their video game without his permission or any compensation. That's straight out theft.
But, formally, the USSC has never ruled on NIL. I think what spooked the NCAA was that Alston was a 9-0 decision, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence all but begged someone to challenge the NCAA on amateurism writ large. But that was a concurring opinion, and I am not sure that if the NCAA were to place restrictions on NILs as currently practiced (pay-to-play, collectives, free agency, etc) that a challenge would necessarily be successful.
BC