“The N.C.A.A. is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the N.C.A.A. to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the three-person panel wrote in what is known as the O’Bannon case.

In July, the panel issued a stay on the judge’s order, which was set to go into effect Aug. 1. Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in upholding the finding that N.C.A.A. rules are subject to antitrust law but dissenting from the finding that struck down the $5,000 cap.

Though legally a dispute over antitrust law, the case has come to embody a broader debate about whether college athletes, who ostensibly pursue sports as part of their education, should be compensated for labors that are highly lucrative for their colleges, conferences and the N.C.A.A.

The decision along with N.C.A.A. reform, in part prompted by and aimed at heading off lawsuits like this one, has prompted many colleges that field teams in the top football conferences and in Division I men’s basketball to begin setting aside more money to compensate athletes. Those payments potentially raise new questions about competitive balance in college sports, Title IX rules relating to women’s sports and athletic department bottom lines.

The tide generally has turned toward the expansion of athletes’ rights, although the N.C.A.A. and colleges still insist their athletes are amateurs and students first. Earlier this year, the five most powerful conferences voted to allow colleges to offer athletes the full cost of attendance, an amount typically several thousand dollars more than previous scholarship limits.

Last month, the N.C.A.A. and the college sports establishment won another victory when the National Labor Relations Board overturned a regional director’s finding that Northwestern football players are employees who may unionize under federal labor law.

A separate proposed class action filed by the renowned sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, which experts see as a far bigger threat to the college sports status quo, seeks to establish a free market for top college athletes. A class certification hearing is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

arkrud wrote:If some kid is a sport talent but pure and cannot pay for education in college and has no money for living without going to work regular job. What if this kid also has family to feed. How this suppose to be handled?
College players are making a lot of money for the schools and so they should be provided with complete accommodation and competitive salary. They also need to be provided with specific educational program which is heavily sport concentrated.
Sport for this kids is a profession not a hobby. So this should be be bachelors college degree - Sports Player.
Then they can do masters in Coaching, sport Reporting, Sport marketing, etc.
This will stop the bullsht

Have been saying this for years.

simrud wrote:The idea of "armature" college sports on Division I level is absurd. The schools are making hundreds of millions in revenue.

To claim that some basket weaving degree in say Ohio State or whatever is fare compensation for 4 years of play is puritanical hypocrisy taken to the absolute level possible.

This is no different from Soviet Union sending pro athletes to the Olympics for years claiming that they are amateurs because they are not getting paid.

And this is besides the point that most college degrees are worthless in general - its a scam that settles people with debt equivalent to a mortgage before they even start their financial life. The vast majority of people would be better served getting a trade degree for a faction of the cost.

Good points. Not counter to this is the cost of non revenue sports that sports like football fuel. Im not here to argue them but womens sports, swimming, rowing, cross country, track, etc are often scholarship sports as those Student athletes are thought to contribute to campus life and often provide opportunities for athletes with little economic means to get an education.
The assumption with football/basketball is these guys are making the campus millions, and its true. Whats also true is only a very few will go on to pro careers. Very few.

In basketball in two rounds (including euros) just 60 players are choosen. Say in two rounds its 50 that comes from U.S. Colleges. Say another 30 don't get drafted but make a team, and say another 30 play Dleague or get a nice paycheck over seas. Not enough to bring family over, but enough to go but still have to have the skills to live alone, earn a living, manage their paycheck and navigate all the complexities of living overseas. That's just over 100 players. There are like 450 div one teams???

So we are talking about a very few select players that impact revenue. Not that anyone forces colleges to build palace arena and stadiums its them (or donors) that have provided magnificent stages to play on. The TV revenue is based on the success of the teams and their inclusion in the conference. Coach's are paid for those who can win and attract fans and donors. Its not fair they are often the highest paid on campus but they are true revenue generators and bring in those star players. Those star players then can get better, be seen and scouted and from their go on to magnificent contracts. But its a very few.

Does the other sports not matter? Im not here to argue that.
What about the kid who gets hurt in his freshman year and can stay and complete his degree (if his scholarship is secured). I am adamant that if a kid is signs on and is removed or is injured but is in good academic standing he gets to finish his degree with room and board. He can get a part time job like other studants for spending money. At this point he is no longer an athlete.
Maybe this type of schalorship is given to just a handful of players.