[BostonCard]

That may be right, but people are inferring a lot from a narrow ruling (albeit one that was unanimous), a strongly worded concurring opinion, and the fact that the Court didn’t grant cert to the O’Bannon decision, even though the O’Bannon case was particularly egregious (his image was basically featured in a video game for which he was prohibited from benefiting, even after he graduated).

I will note that direct payment to athletes is still against NCAA rules, even though the broadest interpretation would find that as a monopoly(technically in this case a monopsony), the NCAA is engaged in restraint of trade, but to my knowledge, no one has yet tried to challenge it.  I agree that the best outcome would be thoughtful legislation that balances the competing interests and provides some clarity but I don’t know that anyone knows what that looks like, and I’m not holding my breath for a legislative solution.

BC

[BostonCard]

That may be right, but people are inferring a lot from a narrow ruling (albeit one that was unanimous), a strongly worded concurring opinion, and the fact that the Court didn’t grant cert to the O’Bannon decision, even though the O’Bannon case was particularly egregious (his image was basically featured in a video game for which he was prohibited from benefiting, even after he graduated).

I will note that direct payment to athletes is still against NCAA rules, even though the broadest interpretation would find that as a monopoly(technically in this case a monopsony), the NCAA is engaged in restraint of trade, but to my knowledge, no one has yet tried to challenge it.  I agree that the best outcome would be thoughtful legislation that balances the competing interests and provides some clarity but I don’t know that anyone knows what that looks like, and I’m not holding my breath for a legislative solution.

BC