The NCAA doesn’t need to compensate college athletes beyond paying for the cost of their attendance, a federal court ruled Wednesday. In a mixed ruling for both college athletes and the NCAA, the court also found that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by limiting what student athletes may receive while playing college sports.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit comes more than five years after former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA for using his name and face on television and in video games without compensation. The NCAA argued that providing players with a share of that compensation would be antithetical to its mission of fostering amateur sports.
Last year, a federal judge suggested that players should be able to receive up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation. Wednesday’s judgment overrules last year’s outcome, but supports the charge that the NCAA violated antitrust laws.
“The NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market,” the ruling read.
In a statement, NCAA representatives said they ARE still assessing the impact of the ruling.
- Alison Roman Won't Sugarcoat It
- If Donald Trump Is Indicted, Here's What Would Happen Next in the Process
- All of the Other Major Investigations Into Donald Trump
- Who Should Be on the 2023 TIME100? Vote Now
- The Case for Betting on Succession's Tom Wambsgans
- Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's Surprising Second Act
- In This Texas County, There's No Such Thing as Moving on From COVID-19
- Why Trump's Call to Protest Is Flopping
- Column: Ozempic Exposed the Cracks in the Body Positivity Movement
