O'Bannon wins, but NCAA may not suffer that much

AP reporting the judge ruled against the NCAA in terms of athletes and their likeness. But the NCAA will be allowed to set limits, as long as the athletes are allowed at least $5,000 a year and that they get paid when their careers end. Trust funds can be set up.

I'm kinda torn on this. On the one hand, the athletes will be finally able to get some extra money, but they'll still have to wait for it. Meanwhile, the college sports' landscape continues to get richer. But a cap might be necessary in order to keep some semblance of competitive balance.

Still, it's nice to see the NCAA get slapped down for their antiquated notions of amateurism. Seems like the judge was trying for a fair compromise.

 

The Kessler trial will be the big one.

 

College football + Amateurism = A ship that sailed sometime around late 1969.

 

I've never thought the problem with the NCAA is how much money they bring in. If people are willing to pay whatever then fine. The problem has been on what the NCAA spends the money the bring in on. New basketball courts every year for the Final Four (mens and women), limitless recruiting budgets, cross-country and international trips, and I'm not even talking about the money sports of football and basketball, but non-revenue sports. It's like they are going out of their way to spend money.

 

One thing few are paying attention to is that the NCAA money train is in deep shit one way or another if a la carte becomes the way of the world in the cable/satellite world.

The TV revenues, which is driving most of this train, could shrink like your dick in Lake Michigan. Goodbye exorbitant carriage fees. It will trickle down to every sports league, but colleges will be particularly hard hit.

Might not be much money for anyone, much less players.

 

Agree. I also think this was, overall, a poor decision. Judges seem to often go off the rails when they think they can or should introduce baby-splitting remedies to complex issues like this.

 

A large part of that, I'm assuming, is because they are supposed to be nonprofit. So they spend money like a drunken sailor to show they aren't making a profit.

Which is why I always find it amusing when the anti-pay people cite the same couple of sources about how only 20 athletic departments or so make a profit. That's because they're really not supposed to be making one.

I have a feeling both sides are going to appeal this, the NCAA on amateurism and the players on the $5,000 limit.

 

Spending such that costs are in excess of revenues is not what makes an organization non-profit.

 

A lot of non-profits take in a shitload of money and pay their executives handsomely.

 

Parents who send kids to Big Five schools have and will continue to fund this stuff at insane levels.

 

An organization can claim that their purpose is not to make a profit because they have a different purpose, such as charitable giving, and yet still make a profit. For athletic departments, their claim, which the NCAA uses to try not to pay the athletes, is that they are non-profit because their purpose is to provide a fun activity to enhance the college experience. What they claim, and what actually happens, is a different matter. They make money, and yet claim non-profit status.

Strangely enough, so does the NFL. They technically are a non-profit, which we all know is BS. Yet, unlike the colleges, they don't have a need to justify their spending because the athletes profit as well.

 

The NFL is an it, not a they, which is a non-trivial piece of information. Check it out and see where it takes you.