Yes, the NCAA's no-pay rule is illegal. It's like all the schools ganging up to fix the 'price' of players at zero, which isn't fair competition. While keeping college sports 'amateur' is a good goal because fans like it, the NCAA's rule goes too far. A less strict rule that still works is to let schools give players scholarships that cover the *full* cost of being a student. However, letting schools pay players an extra $5,000 in cash is too much, because getting paid just for playing is what professionals do, not amateurs.

Yes, I agree with most of the decision, but the trial court's idea to allow a small $5,000 payment was also fair. The evidence at trial, including from the NCAA's own experts, showed that a small payment like this probably wouldn't make fans think of players as professionals or stop watching. The majority is wrong to throw out the trial judge's finding without a good reason, especially when there was evidence to support it.

Yes, the NCAA's rules have to follow antitrust laws. I think the NCAA's ban on paying athletes for NILs goes too far and isn't needed to keep the amateur nature of college sports. The NCAA has to let schools give scholarships that cover the full cost of attending college. But the lower court was wrong to allow cash payments to athletes that aren't tied to education expenses. That would make college sports too much like minor league professional sports.

I mostly agree with the majority, but I disagree about the $5,000 delayed cash payments. There was enough evidence to support the lower court's decision that small NIL payments wouldn't make people less interested in college sports. The lower court didn't clearly make a mistake in saying $5,000 payments would be almost as good as the current rules at keeping the good parts of college sports' amateur status.

Yes. The NCAA’s rules prohibiting student-athletes from being compensated for the use of their NILs are an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. Applying the three-step Rule of Reason, the court found the rules have significant anticompetitive effects by fixing the price for recruits' NILs at zero in the college education market. While preserving amateurism and integrating academics with athletics are legitimate procompetitive justifications, a total ban on compensation is overly restrictive. A less restrictive alternative is to allow schools to offer scholarships up to the full cost of attendance, as this does not undermine amateurism and covers legitimate educational expenses. However, allowing up to $5,000 in deferred cash compensation is not a valid less restrictive alternative because paying students cash untethered to education is a 'quantum leap' that fundamentally undermines the amateur nature of college sports, which is central to its consumer appeal.

Yes. While agreeing with the majority on most points, the district court did not clearly err in finding that allowing up to $5,000 in deferred compensation was a valid less restrictive alternative. The trial record, including testimony from the NCAA's own expert witnesses, provided sufficient evidence that such small, deferred payments would not significantly impact consumer demand for college sports. The majority improperly substitutes its own judgment for the district court's factual findings by dismissing expert testimony and declaring it a 'self-evident fact' that any cash payment undermines amateurism, a conclusion not supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Yes, the NCAA's compensation rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny and must be tested under the Rule of Reason. I conclude that the NCAA's prohibition on compensating student-athletes for their NILs is more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism and is therefore not justifiable. The NCAA must permit its schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance to their student athletes. However, the district court erred in allowing students to receive cash compensation untethered to their education expenses. Allowing such payments would undermine amateurism and transform college sports into a minor league system.

I largely agree with the majority, but respectfully dissent regarding the conclusion that the district court clearly erred in allowing deferred cash payments to student-athletes. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's determination that small NIL payments would not have a significant impact on consumer demand for college sports. The district court did not clearly err in concluding that $5,000 payments would be virtually as effective as the current rules in preserving the procompetitive benefits of the NCAA's amateurism model.

O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot