The NCAA announced Sunday it will appeal the ruling handed down Friday by Judge Claudia Wilken that declared the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws by prohibiting college football and basketball players from being paid for the use of their names, images and likenesses.
NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy issued a statement Sunday staking out the NCAA’s basis for the appeal.
More from College
- Jim Harbaugh facing 4-game suspension over NCAA violations
- Bronny James collapses at practice, taken to ICU with cardiac arrest
- College football neutral site games in 2023: Full list
- College GameDay announces surprise Week 1 destination
- College football analyst warns Oklahoma that Texas is doing better prep for SEC
"We remain confident that the NCAA has not violated the antitrust laws and intend to appeal. We will also be seeking clarity from the District Court on some details of its ruling.It should be noted that the Court supported several of the NCAA’s positions and we share a commitment to better support student-athletes. For more than three years, we’ve been working to improve the college experience for the more than 460,000 student-athletes across all three divisions. On Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors passed a new governance model allowing schools to better support student-athletes, including covering the full cost of attendance, one of the central components of the injunction. The Court also agreed that the integration of academics and athletics is important and supported by NCAA rules.Further, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the NCAA licensed student-athletes’ names, images and likenesses to EA Sports or anyone else. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed model where athletes could directly market their names, images and likenesses while in college.We look forward to presenting our arguments on appeal and in the meantime we will continue to champion student-athlete success on the field and in the classroom."
Friday’s ruling could represent a seismic shift to the landscape of college athletics. The lead plaintiff in the case, former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, told ESPN and ABC News that the ruling is just the beginning.
"“What we did is just a small amount of change. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that a lot of change is going to happen. This is just the beginning.“My biggest thing has been change. These rules have been in place for a hundred year and there has been no change. Times have changed, the economy has changed, the players themselves have changed, the salaries of the coaches have changed. Everything has changed except for how a player is compensated. And whether [they’re paid] while they’re in school or whether it’s once their eligibility is up, that part of the game has to change.”"
It is important to bear in mind that the O’Bannon ruling has nothing to do with paying athletes for playing. This ruling was about removing restrictions on money college athletes can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses, restrictions which Wilken ruled violated antitrust law.
Those payments, under the injunction issued by Wilken, can be capped at a minimum of $5,000 a year for every year an athlete competes.
The ruling also provides schools the right to pay the full cost for an athlete to attend that school, eliminating limits to the amount of financial aid an athlete could receive.
The ruling will not affect recruits enrolled before July 1, 2016.
Add us as a preferred source on Google