Tweet
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey
Seems to me profit is irrelevant... what would matter is they deceived in the "down the line" usage, as it were. At what point is it no longer a university appropriation?
edit: if it its one thing the court has been extremely consistent on, EXCEPT FOR THE CASE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY IN RELATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, is contract law.
Originally posted by HarleyMC
View Post
True and one that reflects some correlation to this case is the 1984 Supreme Court case: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Petitioner v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA and University of Georgia Athletic Association.
The NCAA had adopted a plan for the televising of college football games of it's member institutions for the 1982-1985 seasons. The plan essentially limited the total amount of televised intercollegiate football games and the number of games that any one college may televise, and no NCAA member was permitted to make any sale of television rights except in accordance with the plan. As a result of a dissatisfaction with the NCAA's control of the television market and "the plan", the College Football Association (CFA) was formed, consisting of major college football programs like Univ. of Oklahoma and Georgia. In 1979, the CFA began to negotiate a television contract for its members with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), despite the ongoing NCAA negotiations with both ABC and CBS and the NCAA's ruling forbidding members to negotiate independent TV contracts. On learning of the CFA's negotiations, the NCAA issued an "Official Interpretation" stating that "The Association shall control all forms of televising of the intercollegiate football games of member institutions during the traditional football season..."
The CFA continued to work on a contract with NBC and came to an agreement on August 8, 1981. The NCAA swiftly stated that universities that participated in the CFA contract with NBC would face NCAA sanctions, not just in football, but in all other sports as well. Two member schools of the CFA, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking an injunction to prevent the NCAA from taking action against CFA members.
The lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was determined that the NCAA television plan and adjoining motion by the NCAA to sanction all sports at CFA member schools violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts which are designed to prohibit actions by business entities that restrain open competition and trade. This determination by Supreme Court Judge John Stevens was perhaps the most seminal legal decision concerning college football ever, as it opened the door for college football conferences and teams like Notre Dame to ink the long term, multimillion dollar television contracts we see today in college sports.
However, although the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the NCAA violated Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, all three Supreme Court justices set a legal precedent based upon the concept of "amateurism" by reaffirming the status of the NCAA as a regulatory body that exercises controls to promote, govern and maintain the amateur status of college athletics:
Justice John Stevens:
Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the majority opinion of the court against the NCAA and stated regarding the NCAA's function:
- Legal Information Institute
Noteworthy is the fact that all student athletes in NCAA member institutions must sign a Student Athlete Name and Likeness Release that grants the respective university the right to publish, duplicate, print, or broadcast the student-athletes name, voice, photograph, likeness, or any other image for any purpose that the university or conference determines is in the best interests of the university or conference. Such uses must be consistent with all applicable NCAA rules and regulations, and the student-athlete acknowledges that neither the student-athlete nor his or her heirs shall be entitled to any compensation for the use of such name, voice, photograph or likeness or other image.
What O'Bannon and associates must essentially prove is that the NCAA and key member institutions colluded to deceive student-athletes by adopting the Student Athlete Name and Likeness Release policy to profit from their use of their names and likenesses. That will be extremely difficult to prove, especially considering the above legal precedent regarding the NCAA's function to preserve amateurism in college sports. However, for those cases where college athletes' images and likenesses have been used AFTER they no longer attend NCAA member institutions, I suspect the NCAA will opt for an out of court settlement.
The NCAA had adopted a plan for the televising of college football games of it's member institutions for the 1982-1985 seasons. The plan essentially limited the total amount of televised intercollegiate football games and the number of games that any one college may televise, and no NCAA member was permitted to make any sale of television rights except in accordance with the plan. As a result of a dissatisfaction with the NCAA's control of the television market and "the plan", the College Football Association (CFA) was formed, consisting of major college football programs like Univ. of Oklahoma and Georgia. In 1979, the CFA began to negotiate a television contract for its members with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), despite the ongoing NCAA negotiations with both ABC and CBS and the NCAA's ruling forbidding members to negotiate independent TV contracts. On learning of the CFA's negotiations, the NCAA issued an "Official Interpretation" stating that "The Association shall control all forms of televising of the intercollegiate football games of member institutions during the traditional football season..."
The CFA continued to work on a contract with NBC and came to an agreement on August 8, 1981. The NCAA swiftly stated that universities that participated in the CFA contract with NBC would face NCAA sanctions, not just in football, but in all other sports as well. Two member schools of the CFA, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking an injunction to prevent the NCAA from taking action against CFA members.
The lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was determined that the NCAA television plan and adjoining motion by the NCAA to sanction all sports at CFA member schools violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts which are designed to prohibit actions by business entities that restrain open competition and trade. This determination by Supreme Court Judge John Stevens was perhaps the most seminal legal decision concerning college football ever, as it opened the door for college football conferences and teams like Notre Dame to ink the long term, multimillion dollar television contracts we see today in college sports.
However, although the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the NCAA violated Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, all three Supreme Court justices set a legal precedent based upon the concept of "amateurism" by reaffirming the status of the NCAA as a regulatory body that exercises controls to promote, govern and maintain the amateur status of college athletics:
Justice John Stevens:
Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the majority opinion of the court against the NCAA and stated regarding the NCAA's function:
- Legal Information Institute
Noteworthy is the fact that all student athletes in NCAA member institutions must sign a Student Athlete Name and Likeness Release that grants the respective university the right to publish, duplicate, print, or broadcast the student-athletes name, voice, photograph, likeness, or any other image for any purpose that the university or conference determines is in the best interests of the university or conference. Such uses must be consistent with all applicable NCAA rules and regulations, and the student-athlete acknowledges that neither the student-athlete nor his or her heirs shall be entitled to any compensation for the use of such name, voice, photograph or likeness or other image.
What O'Bannon and associates must essentially prove is that the NCAA and key member institutions colluded to deceive student-athletes by adopting the Student Athlete Name and Likeness Release policy to profit from their use of their names and likenesses. That will be extremely difficult to prove, especially considering the above legal precedent regarding the NCAA's function to preserve amateurism in college sports. However, for those cases where college athletes' images and likenesses have been used AFTER they no longer attend NCAA member institutions, I suspect the NCAA will opt for an out of court settlement.
edit: if it its one thing the court has been extremely consistent on, EXCEPT FOR THE CASE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY IN RELATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, is contract law.
) of a Supreme Court judge in this case. That's a Red Herring because: 1) it is an ad hominem, 2) it cannot be legally substantiated that the appearance of impartiality was compromised, and 3) by law, all federal justices are required to recuse themselves from any case in which their impartiality may be reasonably questioned. The statute governing recusal also sets forth a number of specific circumstances which demand recusal, such as when the judge has personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer or material witness, a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.
Comment