NCAA fails to knock out lawsuit aimed at sharing TV money with athletes

Oral Roberts v Florida
Getty Images

It’s been a bad week for the NCAA.

Via USA Today, a federal judge has refused to dismiss a case in which athletes seek an order preventing the NCAA from limiting name, image, and likeness revenue, and that athletes receive damages based on the share of TV money and social-media revenue athletes would receive absent NIL limits.

The effort to receive a piece of the TV revenue may seem confusing at first blush, but the argument goes like this: Individual schools could offer a share of the revenue from television rights as an NIL payment but for NCAA rules preventing it.

The ruling doesn’t amount to a victory on the merits of the case; instead, it allows the case to go forward by rejecting the NCAA’s argument that the case should be thrown out.

The litigation raises an important point as the world finally wakes up to the manner in which athletes have been exploited by the NCAA and its member institutions. The NCAA not only has to worry about the rules dramatically changing moving forward but also must fret about various forms of financial liability for antitrust violations arising from the existing rules, which by rule would then be multiplied by three.

6 responses to “NCAA fails to knock out lawsuit aimed at sharing TV money with athletes

  1. A part of me is in favor of the NCAA and the other favors the athletes. Firmly believe that the NCAA follows old, archaic rules and that needs change. But at the same time, there has to be something that qualifies an athlete as an amateur, which typically means not getting paid, there has to be a middle ground – otherwise the NCAA is washed up battling losing law suits.

    Sadly, the amateur athlete is in a pickle as well, they should be able to gain revenue in some form or another for their hard work. Many continue to live at or below the poverty line with their families hoping for that “pro” break and big payday. College stars don’t have it so bad as they get lots of cash under the table, but that money shouldn’t be illegal – if an alumni wants to pay for a dirty sweaty jersey, so be it.

    The catch is; if college athletes don’t some compensation in some form – this is what often leads to bad things when they do get that big payday in the pros. Going from 0 to a million isn’t good good for someone who hasn’t managed money ever. I’m all for some sort of amateur trust if that can be possible, or something like that. That will funnel enough cash to these people to make their efforts appreciated, pay their bills, take care of their families – yet not spoil them rotten. College should be a learning exercise on many levels.

  2. Excellent! Sports have made so many peripheral parties rich (sports media, agents, team execs, trainers, etc.). Players deserve their ample share no matter the level of competition (pro, college, even high school).

  3. OK. Don’t you think it’s about time to retire the description “student-athlete” and go back to the old days when it was just “athlete”. The idea that the educational part of it -“student” has always been a joke. Now that $ is involved, even more so that those boys and girls are in school for an education.

  4. This is ridiculous, and it’s very simple. A court can’t FORCE an organization to “share” ANYTHING. They’ll just have to have athletes sign CONTRACTS that state they’re not entitled to any of the TV money, that they accept their education as their comp for playing, and that’s that. And if they don’t agree, go play for the XFL.

  5. Don’t think you get it, ringheadcrusher. Schools will have to compete for players. If that’s all they offer, another school can offer more. Alabama could certainly offer a top prospect a contract for only room and board and education. LSU could then offer all that plus $5000 a month. Alabama likely loses out.

    If you then say the schools need to agree to only offer R&B and tuition, well, that’s illegal. It’s called collusion and it interferes with the free market. That’s why the NCAA is praying for an antitrust exemption.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.