UPDATE: Judge Wilken issues additional ruling against NCAA – Sport

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California continued her series of rulings against the NCAA by granting class-action status for the damages portion of the current proceeding. Home vs. NCAA action. The case involves current and former student-athletes who have sued the NCAA and major college conferences for antitrust violations and are seeking a multibillion-dollar award for the class of student-athlete plaintiffs who were blocked from enjoy the use of their names. , images and likenesses (NIL).

Judge Wilken’s granting of class action status follows her recent ruling certifying a class seeking an injunction in the same case in late September. It now authorizes the award of potential damages to a class well beyond the named plaintiffs who initiated this action, potentially expanded to a class of thousands of current and former student-athletes.

The case was initiated as two separate lawsuits in 2020, one filed by Grant House, a former member of the Arizona State University men’s swimming and diving team, and the other filed by Sedona Price, former member of the University of Oregon women’s basketball team. team and current member of the Texas Christian University women’s team. Both of these actions were filed more than a year before the NCAA and various state laws were introduced and passed allowing student-athletes to benefit from commercial use of their NIL. A third lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, former University of Illinois football player Tymir Oliver, also filed in 2020, was ultimately combined and consolidated with the Home action.

The primary issue raised in the action is whether the NCAA and the largest conferences (the Power 5) have violated and continue to violate federal antitrust law by imposing specific and artificial prohibitions restricting the ability of student-athletes to win. zero remuneration. by sharing broadcast revenues generated by the rights negotiated by the NCAA and Power 5. Judge Wilken’s current decision continues a series of rulings she has made against the NCAA in two major NCAA cases, Ed
O’Bannon And Shawn Alston.

The now-certified class of student-athletes seeks damages based on lost revenue from the use of their NIL in television shows and video games, as well as lost revenue from commercial uses of NIL (e.g., social media deals) that were lost as a result of the NCAA’s prior restrictions on NIL compensation. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that football, men’s and women’s basketball athletes competing in the Power Five conferences are entitled to damages resulting from the unauthorized use of their NIL rights in the broadcast of their games and that athletes participating in all Power 5 sports owe damages arising from unauthorized revenue generated by social media.
If successful, this could result in damages estimated between $1.4 billion and more than $4 billion.

In addition to this potentially devastating financial award, the final outcome in this case could also result in a sea change for college sports. Ultimately, the decision could expand student-athletes’ NIL income sources to include access to financial benefits derived from the athletic success of their individual conferences and schools, including television broadcast revenue, the sale of tickets and support from schools.

Clearly, the NCAA’s desire and apparent confidence in the arrival of federal legislative intervention to eliminate the various state NIL laws and the resulting lack of federal guidance to help create national uniformity regarding the use of NIL and formal antitrust protection from Congress have created a gap in the legal landscape of college sports. That gap has since been filled by a tidal wave of alternative legal challenges from student-athletes, former student-athletes, activist groups and others.

Judge Wilken’s decision only adds to the NCAA’s comprehensive legal case, which includes an upcoming National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative hearing in Los Angeles that alleges that the NCAA, the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California are joint employers who have illegally misclassified college athletes as “student-athletes” rather than employees. While the arbitration process in this case will begin next week, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team is also currently seeking to be declared employed in NLRB Region 1 in order to continue its efforts to unionize and join the Service Employees International Union. . Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit continues to review Johnson case, which seeks to use the Fair Labor Standards Act to have athletes treated as school employees entitled to at least minimum wage and overtime rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While the NCAA hopes for the equivalent of a legal “Hail Mary” from Judge Wilken, the plaintiffs intend to seek an injunction striking down all current active restrictions and prohibitions against the commercial use of NIL by athletes, including the ability of conferences to pay student-athletes. directly. The federal courts and the NLRB are sure to be front and center in the world of college sports in the weeks, months and years to come, shifting the focus away from the courts and gridirons of collegiate competition.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your specific situation.