As you have likely heard by now, Judge Claudia Wilkens found in August that in the case of O’Bannon vs NCAA, “the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools.”
If you are a D-I student-athlete or hope to be one soon, this ruling may have an effect on the offers that you receive from your institution. I’ll be exploring this ruling, the anti-trust laws behind it and how it will affect student-athletes.
By J Rosenfeld (Ed O’Bannon Uploaded by GrV) [CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The contents of the ruling
The decision applied specifically to NCAA rules that disallow student-athletes from receiving revenues from the sale of licenses for so-called “NIL’s”, or Name, Images and Likenesses. Currently, schools often sell these licenses to third parties and keep the profits under the agreement between them and the student. Students are barred from selling these licenses independently or accepting anything of value under NCAA amateurism rules.
Wilkens ruled against O’Bannon on several counts. She held that the plaintiffs failed to show how the NCAA policy forbids the sharing of these revenues with student-athletes actually being caused harm, that NCAA restraints are preventing competition between students to sell group licenses or that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect on the buyers’ market for group licenses.
Where Wilkens did rule in O’Bannon’s favor was in regards to the college education market. She found that schools with elite athletics programs are the only supplier of college education in this specific market – that is, high level student-athletes – and that they act in concert with the NCAA to fix the price of their product. In this case, the price of their product is not the nominal cost of tuition, but rather the recruit’s athletic services and the use of his or her name, image and likeness. In the absence of this restraint, Wilkens opined that schools would compete against each other for the best recruits by using more attractive scholarships and licensing stipends.
Anti-trust laws
In simple terms, Wilkens ruled that colleges and the NCAA are working together to keep the “cost” of a student-athlete’s services and licensing rights down. As of now, the cost is only the price of a college education – the maximum allowed under NCAA amateurism rules.
Under the Sherman Act, the first anti-trust law established in the United States, “every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade” is forbidden, though this has long been interpreted to mean only unreasonable restraints of trade. Those practices that are almost always considered to be unlawful under the Sherman Act include things like bid rigging, dividing markets and fixing prices.
By agreeing together not to offer licensing rights or payment in excess of the cost of attendance, colleges and the NCAA are effectively fixing the price of the student’s athletic services, according to Wilkens’ ruling. Insofar as this constitutes a violation of the Sherman Act, it is therefore unlawful.
Results for student-athletes
Students in D-1 athletics programs shouldn’t start selling licensing rights yet. The results of Wilkens’ ruling seem likely to be fairly limited in scope.
First, Wilkens ruled that any collusion not to pay for NILs was enjoined, but that she might accept a plan for deferred payments for costs above the full cost of attendance. Further, she said that she would strike down a cap on deferred payments below $5,000, implicitly opening the door to a $5,000 cap.
Perhaps more importantly, Wilkens is not mandating $5,000 worth of compensation, nor even the full cost of attendance. The only thing that this ruling does is to ban schools from agreeing together not to increase their compensation.
The NCAA has already appealed the ruling, but it may well hold. If so, expect to see offers of deferred compensation for licensing rights within a few years.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
What does O'Bannon vs NCAA mean for you?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
As you have likely heard by now, Judge Claudia Wilkens found in August that in the case of O’Bannon vs NCAA, “the challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools.”
If you are a D-I student-athlete or hope to be one soon, this ruling may have an effect on the offers that you receive from your institution. I’ll be exploring this ruling, the anti-trust laws behind it and how it will affect student-athletes.
By J Rosenfeld (Ed O’Bannon Uploaded by GrV) [CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The contents of the ruling
The decision applied specifically to NCAA rules that disallow student-athletes from receiving revenues from the sale of licenses for so-called “NIL’s”, or Name, Images and Likenesses. Currently, schools often sell these licenses to third parties and keep the profits under the agreement between them and the student. Students are barred from selling these licenses independently or accepting anything of value under NCAA amateurism rules.
Wilkens ruled against O’Bannon on several counts. She held that the plaintiffs failed to show how the NCAA policy forbids the sharing of these revenues with student-athletes actually being caused harm, that NCAA restraints are preventing competition between students to sell group licenses or that the restraints have an anti-competitive effect on the buyers’ market for group licenses.
Where Wilkens did rule in O’Bannon’s favor was in regards to the college education market. She found that schools with elite athletics programs are the only supplier of college education in this specific market – that is, high level student-athletes – and that they act in concert with the NCAA to fix the price of their product. In this case, the price of their product is not the nominal cost of tuition, but rather the recruit’s athletic services and the use of his or her name, image and likeness. In the absence of this restraint, Wilkens opined that schools would compete against each other for the best recruits by using more attractive scholarships and licensing stipends.
Anti-trust laws
In simple terms, Wilkens ruled that colleges and the NCAA are working together to keep the “cost” of a student-athlete’s services and licensing rights down. As of now, the cost is only the price of a college education – the maximum allowed under NCAA amateurism rules.
Under the Sherman Act, the first anti-trust law established in the United States, “every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade” is forbidden, though this has long been interpreted to mean only unreasonable restraints of trade. Those practices that are almost always considered to be unlawful under the Sherman Act include things like bid rigging, dividing markets and fixing prices.
By agreeing together not to offer licensing rights or payment in excess of the cost of attendance, colleges and the NCAA are effectively fixing the price of the student’s athletic services, according to Wilkens’ ruling. Insofar as this constitutes a violation of the Sherman Act, it is therefore unlawful.
Results for student-athletes
Students in D-1 athletics programs shouldn’t start selling licensing rights yet. The results of Wilkens’ ruling seem likely to be fairly limited in scope.
First, Wilkens ruled that any collusion not to pay for NILs was enjoined, but that she might accept a plan for deferred payments for costs above the full cost of attendance. Further, she said that she would strike down a cap on deferred payments below $5,000, implicitly opening the door to a $5,000 cap.
Perhaps more importantly, Wilkens is not mandating $5,000 worth of compensation, nor even the full cost of attendance. The only thing that this ruling does is to ban schools from agreeing together not to increase their compensation.
The NCAA has already appealed the ruling, but it may well hold. If so, expect to see offers of deferred compensation for licensing rights within a few years.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
