Source: USA TODAY
The NCAA late Thursday night asked a federal judge not to issue an injunction prohibiting the association and its member schools from limiting what athletes can receive for playing sports – essentially leaving limits in the hands of members. At the same time, it also asked the U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to decide the underlying anti-trust suit concerning used of college athletes names and likenesses in the NCAA’s favor without a trial.
Thursday night’s filing was the NCAA’s response to the plaintiffs’ request Nov. 15 for what is known as summary judgment, a ruling by a judge that is based on a case’s pre-trial record of documents and hearings.
In that request, the plaintiffs said the NCAA’s assertions that its limits on athlete compensation enhance competition are not backed by sufficient evidence, so the plaintiffs should prevail.
Thursday night, the NCAA argued there are five justifications for the compensation limits – and it unloaded a voluminous set of exhibits to back those justifications, as well as its request for a summary judgment ruling in its favor. Among the exhibits are new statements from more nine college presidents or chancellors, six conference commissioners and six athletics directors, as well as excerpts from recently taken depositions of five current college athletes who became named plaintiffs in the case.
The statements from the college officials are reminiscent of those the NCAA filed in March as part of a bid to prevent the case from being certified as a class action.
The NCAA argues that the limits are justified because:
“The evidence shows that the current collegiate model of athletics is a major reason why NCAA sports are popular, and thus provide the athletic and educational experience that so many student-athletes seek out,” NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement.
“The NCAA’s rules do not force athletes who wish to be professionals to enroll in school. Instead, the plaintiffs seek to professionalize a few college athletes, which would lead to a reduction in athletic and educational opportunities for the vast majority of male and female student-athletes who pursue Division I, II and III athletics. The collegiate model of athletics is essential in reinforcing the integration of education and athletics and allows our colleges and universities to offer a wide array of non-revenue-generating men’s and women’s sports.”
At present, college athletes get a scholarship that basically comprises tuition, fees, room and books. It is widely acknowledged that these elements do not cover the full cost of attending college. The plaintiffs are seeking a system of compensation that would allow Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men’s basketball players to receive greater compensation in exchange for playing and for allowing schools to use their names and likenesses in television broadcasts, video games and other marketing.
The plaintiffs said in their summary judgment documents “It is important to emphasize that the (plaintiffs) are not advocating an end to the principle of amateurism, nor are they advocating salaries” for college athletes. But they have made clear they are targeting the NCAA’s and the conferences’ television rights fee revenue.
Wilken has granted the plaintiffs class-action status in regard to their bid to change the NCAA’s rules about athlete compensation. She refused to certify a class that would have allowed the plaintiffs, led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, to seek $3.2 billion in damages for past use of athletes’ names and likeness in TV broadcasts – an award that, under anti-trust law, would be tripled. However, the plaintiffs have asked Wilken to reconsider her refusal. That request is pending.
Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.