Summary Judgment motions under review in NCAA Antitrust Case
By Blake Yagman
Judge Claudia Wilken will be tasked with determining whether the O’Bannon v. NCAA case set the precedent for the immediate case, Jenkins v. NCAA.
The NCAA has had a difficult past few weeks and, depending on how Judge Wilken rules, it could be due for even more hardship.
Last week, Judge Wilken heard arguments in California federal court. Both the NCAA and the players have asserted a motion for summary judgment, meaning that both sides would like Wilken to rule on the merits of the case because there is no genuine dispute of fact between the parties. When a motion for summary judgment is granted, it takes the case away from the jury and allows the judge to make a ruling either on behalf of or against the moving party.
Jenkins v. NCAA is the latest case in a long line of cases to determine whether or not the NCAA is committing antitrust violations by upholding its infamous ‘amateurism’ principle (not paying the players compensation beyond scholarship, room, board and food).
In this particular case, Jenkins is suing to force the NCAA to allot funds to Division I athletes to the maximum extent allowed by the NCAA’s ‘grant-in-aid’ program. Allegedly, the NCAA has been withholding ‘grant-in-aid’ funds to players when the league should be providing more; the lawsuit claims that the NCAA frequently under-provides the amount of ‘grant-in-aid’ requested by student-athletes. The players contend that:
"“… there is no evidence that paying players more than the cost of attendance would destroy the demand for collegiate sports.”"
The NCAA disagrees.
According to the NCAA, the player’s argument should be precluded, meaning that because the Courts have addressed this issue already that this case cannot be heard. The NCAA cites O’Bannon v. NCAA, a 2015 case out of the fifth circuit, which helped to defeat portions of the NCAA’s amateurism principles. O’Bannon was the case which ultimately upset the existence of the NCAA video game franchise and protected uncompensated use of player likeness. The NCAA stated in regard to O’Bannon:
"“O’Bannon precludes the players’ bid to undo the association’s longstanding prohibition on pay-for-play as well as the players’ challenges related to more than 80 NCAA rules they ask the court to enjoin."
This case could be the one that finally cracks the NCAA if Judge Wilken decides that O’Bannon does not preclude Jenkins’ case. Check out this video’s discussion of some of the issues that are presented by this case.
If Judge Wilken rules in Jenkins favor, collegiate athletics could completely change as we know it.