re: Johnny Manziel Suspended First Half Against Rice (NOW OFFICIAL)

quote:

---

It wouldn't have been relevant to O'Bannon except in the public's mind. I understand that view is the consensus of sportswriters but I don't think they understand how the legal system works. The NCAA also doesn't make much money from these things despite sportswriters saying they make a fortune. It makes next to nil (an extremely laughable amount even to the out of work home entrepreneur) from football. The people who truly make money are the networks but see below for more.

When it comes to CFB, even schools that turn profits (and there are only a handful -- fewer than 95%) put that money right back into the AD in an ever continuing arms race. The court isn't going to look at simply basketball or football teams that turn real profits. They're not even going to *solely* look at those two sports. What they're going to look at is the totality of NCAA sports which includes many sports, some none of us has heard of. Even *if* SCOTUS decides to rule favorably for O'Bannon the court will likely split the difference and decide to allow control of a player's image only years AFTER graduation while still allowing both the NCAA and Universities to use them without permission or payment.

Antitrust laws (the meat of O'Bannon and the only sound footing for suit) have exceptions. Pro sports are one exception and media (think ESPN/CBS etc.) is another. To add to the problems of the O'Bannon Case, EA has a freedom of expression defense as it's a creative endeavor. And then there's the bit about the fact monopolies aren't in and of themselves illegal but must engage in unfair enterprise (e.g price fixing, restricting consumer choice, refusing to supply a product).

But at the heart of ALL antitrust law/legal theory is enterprise and consumer protection. The notion that if you do have a monopoly then your responsibility is to ensure that you don't impair competition is also foundational.

Under the anti-trust laws that govern similar entities, the NCAA has firm ground that has been established by prior cases as well as governments and state that grant of monopolies for specific reasons. With Grant Laws/Government granted monopolies it's a-ok to establish government granted monopolies where competition is not practical or feasible and the NCAA has a good case for requesting one should the case go against them (e.g. K-12 and utility monopolies among many others fall under this category).

IOW, it's a legal area designed to cater to markets, enterprise, businesses and ensure that even in the case of a monopoly businesses are not shut out of the market as well as designed to protect consumers who buy a product from being gouged.

Finally, and this has little to do with antitrust or monopolies, it's long been held that models or subjects can sign over the rights to that particular image in perpetuity without any recourse even when they do so for free. Even those of us who go out in public, have ZERO right over the image taken -- only the photographer has rights and he or she may keep or sell it at whim.

Then there's the obvious issue that the NCAA is a non-profit ultimately controlled by multiple schools and related members and that such a suit would in the end ruin every college sport. Success would make it all but impossible to force compliance with other federal laws governing universities. The court has no reason to overturn this based on anti-trust laws unless they seriously want to diverge from more than 100+ years of anti-trust law just for shits and giggles.

TL;DR - O'Bannon ain't all it's cracked up to be by sportswriters and news writers and in fact faces a very steep climb in order to succeed.

---