BSLW6604 Lecture 18: Antitrust Law and NCAA
8 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
1. Antitrust Law and NCAA
a. NCAA v Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma (1984)
i. The NCAA adopted a plan for the televising of college football games of its
member institutions for the 1982-1985 seasons. The plan’s intention is to reduce
the adverse effect of live television upon football game attendance. The plan
limited the total amount of televised intercollegiate football games and tte
number of games that any one college may televise, and no member of the
NCAA is permitted to make any sale of television rights except in accordance
with the plan
ii. Court held that the NCAA’s imposed restrictions on the number of televised
football games was an unreasonable restriction of trade of the Sherman Antitrust
Act
iii. Court defines the NCAA as “the guardian of an important American tradition,”
namely, amateurism in intercollegiate athletics
b. NCAA v Tarkanian (1988)
i. Court held that NCAA was a private association and not a state actor, thereby it
was not required to provide “due process”
ii. Board of Regents raised the financial stakes in college athletics
iii. Tarkanian failed to increase the procedural protections of persons accused to
rules violations proportionally to the elevated financial stakes despite the loss of
employment, a college education, future careers, or earnings as a result of NCAA
imposed punishment
iv. Litigation took 26 years
c. Bloom v NCAA (2004)
i. Challenge by a student-athlete to keep endorsement money denied
ii. The NCAA told Bloom, a top-flight wide receiver for the University of Colorado,
to give up skiing-related endorsement or forget about ever playing college
football
iii. The NCAA declares it alright to be a professional in one sport and not another;
but has decided that they no ability to differentiate between sports on
endorsement and marketing opportunities so student-athletes can’t accept those
funds
iv. NCAA redefined “amateurism
d. White v NCAA (2008)
i. Suit brought by former NCAA student-athletes Jason White of Stanford
(football), Brian Polak of UCLA (football), Jovan Harris of University of San
Fran (basketball), and Chris Craig of Texas-El Paso (basketball) claiming that the
NCAA limited the value of athletic scholarships to less than the full cost of
attending their colleges
ii. Suit claimed that the NCAA’s restricting scholarships to the cost of tuition,
books, housing, and meals was an unlawful restraint to trade because of the
billions of dollars the NCAA earned through broadcast and television deals
iii. NCAA study estimated that athletes on full scholarships averaged $2,500 a year
in out-of-pocket expenses
iv. Results
1. $10M settlement
2. Critical because it resulted in
a. Expanding funds for current athletes
b. Freed institutions to provide health and injury insurance
c. Set the table for multiyear scholarships
e. O’Bannon v NCAA (2015)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Antitrust law and ncaa, ncaa v board of regents of univ. of oklahoma (1984, the ncaa adopted a plan for the televising of college football games of its member institutions for the 1982-1985 seasons. The plan"s intention is to reduce the adverse effect of live television upon football game attendance. The plan limited the total amount of televised intercollegiate football games and tte number of games that any one college may televise, and no member of the. Fran (basketball), and chris craig of texas-el paso (basketball) claiming that the. Sports & clc: 2014: keller & o"bannon cases deconsolidated. The ncaa rules limit the value of athletic scholarships to reimbursement for tuition, room, board, fees, and course-related books. This cap is challenged under antitrust law: once against, the case is before judge wilkins in california, ncaa"s motion for summary judgment was denied, as was a postponement request by the ncaa. A trial on the merits will be held in.
