ESPN Reports: Athletes Seek Class Action NCAA Suit

[NewPapaBear]

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Former college basketball standout Ed O'Bannon and his lawyers sought on Thursday to dramatically expand his lawsuit challenging the NCAA's ban on compensating athletes in a move that could expose the organization and its member schools to billions of dollars in damages.

Farrey: Legal Battle Was Inevitable
The NCAA's financial battle with former athletes was bound to happen after the growing commercialization of college sports, Tom Farrey writes. Story

O'Bannon and his lawyers asked a federal court judge to turn their antitrust lawsuit into a class action, representing thousands of former and current college athletes. The lawsuit demands that the NCAA find a way to cut players in on the billions of dollars earned by college sports from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales, video games and in other areas.

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken didn't rule on either the merits of O'Bannon's case or his demands to turn the case into a class action. It could take weeks, even months, before Wilken rules.

Instead, she ordered O'Bannon's lawyers to revise the lawsuit to fix some legal technicalities, including explicating adding current players to the lawsuit. Lawyer Michael Hausfeld said he will file a new lawsuit that includes current players, but will seek to keep their names confidential.

"They are afraid of retaliation," Hausfeld told the court.

NCAA lawyer Greg Curtner is against certifying the lawsuit as a class action, arguing that the claims of thousands of collegiate athletes are too different to be treated the same. For instance, certain athletes bring in more revenue than others and have different legal claims at stake.

The NCAA argues that many of the athletes receive scholarships in exchange for playing sports and to pay student athletes would ruin amateur athletics. To pay athletes more than that would ruin collegiate sports, the NCAA argues.

The debate over compensating college players is almost as old as the NCAA, founded in 1906. Amateurs have been expected to compete for free and the love of sport -- or at least the cost of a scholarship and the pursuit of an education.

The NCAA is steadfast in its position that student-athletes are prohibited from receiving payment for participating in sports. It also says it has done nothing wrong in marketing itself for the benefit of its member schools and will continue to vigorously contest the lawsuits

But the NCAA's revenues have skyrocketed in recent years -- it recently signed a $10.8 billion, 14-year television deal for basketball -- and so have the demands of athletes to share in the money.

"I'm doing this for change," O'Bannon said outside court.

The star of the NCAA 1995 basketball champion UCLA Bruins traveled from his Las Vegas home to attend the hearing Thursday.

He said he first became aware that others were profiting from his image in 1995, when he visited a friend's house and was shown an avatar resembling O'Bannon playing for the 1995 Bruins in the game. Two years later, he filed a lawsuit that focused attention from lawmakers, college administrators and others on just how much money the NCAA and its member schools earn each year.

The schools argue that money-making sports like football and baseball help support sports such as volleyball and gymnastics with smaller fan bases.

That may be, O'Bannon said, but he still thinks student athletes who help generate the revenues are entitled to a cut.

"I believe the kids coming through the system can do better than I did," he said. "I never thought this lawsuit would get this big, but now that it has, I hope it forces big changes."

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9406971/former-athletes-seek-class-action-status-lawsuit-vs-ncaa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

These articles always throw out the huge revenue numbers. I'd be more interested in where the revenue from the NCAA, a non-profit organizations, is allocated and used for. I do know many NCAA members rely on that money to survive and fund all their sports programs (including the ones that operate at a tremendous loss). Taking money out of the pot to pay players who already receive the enormous benefit of debt-free education, free tutoring, and the other things that a full-ride scholarship provides, would not be beneficial to the overall health of college sports in my opinion.

 

[Grisly Fan]

The NCAA largely brought this upon themselves (or at least they expedited it since it may have gotten to this point eventually). Actions like not allowing athletes to sell memorabilia which they own and levying fines for using water to wash your car (and all of the other draconian behavior) only inflamed the situation. Had the NCAA been more of a benevolent dictator there would be less evidence to prove that they are too controlling -- and mostly for the big bucks they rake in. And there are plenty of stories of abuse like the lavish parties and benefits given to the managers of the major bowl games. I read an article a few years ago that sounded really ridiculous. Like any organization run amok, whether it be a corporation, government, or charity, there is a time of reckoning. It may be that time for the NCAA.

 

[Ursa Major]

These articles always throw out the huge revenue numbers. I'd be more interested in where the revenue from the NCAA, a non-profit organizations, is allocated and used for. I do know many NCAA members rely on that money to survive and fund all their sports programs (including the ones that operate at a tremendous loss). Taking money out of the pot to pay players who already receive the enormous benefit of debt-free education, free tutoring, and the other things that a full-ride scholarship provides, would not be beneficial to the overall health of college sports in my opinion.

+1

Jim Thorpe

 

[CatzWillRise]

If something like this were to pass, that would widen the gap between the major players and the mid-majors even more.

Come to Texas. We will give you a great education for free, and you will make $25,000 per game.

Come to FSU. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $15,000 per game.

Come to Texas Tech. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $5,000 per game.

 

[NewPapaBear]

These articles always throw out the huge revenue numbers. I'd be more interested in where the revenue from the NCAA, a non-profit organizations, is allocated and used for. I do know many NCAA members rely on that money to survive and fund all their sports programs (including the ones that operate at a tremendous loss). Taking money out of the pot to pay players who already receive the enormous benefit of debt-free education, free tutoring, and the other things that a full-ride scholarship provides, would not be beneficial to the overall health of college sports in my opinion.

 

[CrunchGriz]

If something like this were to pass, that would widen the gap between the major players and the mid-majors even more.

Come to Texas. We will give you a great education for free, and you will make $25,000 per game.

Come to FSU. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $15,000 per game.

Come to Texas Tech. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $5,000 per game.

Come to Montana. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you a tailgate burger per game.

 

[mtgrizrule]

If something like this were to pass, that would widen the gap between the major players and the mid-majors even more.

Come to Texas. We will give you a great education for free, and you will make $25,000 per game.

Come to FSU. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $15,000 per game.

Come to Texas Tech. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you $5,000 per game.

Come to Montana. We will give you a great education for free, and we can offer you a tailgate burger per game.

If you are lucky, maybe we can spare a beer too. :thumb: :lol:

 

[NewPapaBear]

These articles always throw out the huge revenue numbers. I'd be more interested in where the revenue from the NCAA, a non-profit organizations, is allocated and used for. I do know many NCAA members rely on that money to survive and fund all their sports programs (including the ones that operate at a tremendous loss). Taking money out of the pot to pay players who already receive the enormous benefit of debt-free education, free tutoring, and the other things that a full-ride scholarship provides, would not be beneficial to the overall health of college sports in my opinion.

Let me get this right. By your logic, the players are supposed to generate the revenue yet not have "money out of the pot?" Alot of the revenue generated is misappropriated by late 50 - mid 70 year old men whom are supposed to be protecting the integrity of collegiate sport.

Tough to do when your have your hand in the cookie jar as often as the NCAA & school presidents do!

With that said, he's a simple formula to compensate the players in what I believe would be appropriate.
Heres the number on providing football players a $500 per month stipend from Aug-May:
(based upon 63 FCS Football Full Scholarships)

$500 (x) 9mos = $4500; $4500 (x) 63 players = $283,500

How about this in relationship to the bigger number above:
25,000 griz fans (x) $25per person = $625,000 tix only (-) $283,500 total amount of hypothetical stipend pool

Program meets the potential responsibility of the annual football scholarship stipends in ONE home game!
With $341,500 in projected revenues left. The entire annual outlay to the players is covered in one 25,000 person sellout.

Do those numbers make sense?