Appeals court rules NCAA violated antitrust laws but strikes down deferred payments

In the ongoing and contentious fight over compensation for college athletes, the NCAA scored a narrow split decision in federal appeals court Wednesday.tmpplchld The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled NCAA schools must compensate student-athletes only for the full cost of attendance, striking down a proposal that would have paid athletes an additional $5,000 per year in deferred compensation for use of their likenesses. The ruling stated that cost of attendance was sufficient.tmpplchld The decision upheld a federal judge’s ruling from last year, which said the NCAA’s use of college athletes’ names, images and likenesses violated antitrust laws. But the latest outcome in what has become known as the O’Bannon Case can be seen as a victory for the country’s biggest athletic conferences and those that seek to protect the collegiate athletic model and limit compensation for athletes.tmpplchld “Today, we reaffirm that NCAA regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny and must be tested in the crucible of the Rule of Reason,” a three-person appeals panel wrote.tmpplchld The panel continued: “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student-athletes. It does not require more.”tmpplchld Immediately following the ruling, NCAA president Mark Emmert said in a release: “We have not completely reviewed the court’s 78-page decision, but we agree with the court that the injunction ‘allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year was erroneous.’ Since Aug. 1, the NCAA has allowed member schools to provide up to full cost of attendance; however, we disagree that it should be mandated by the courts.”tmpplchld The decision comes after years of legal wrangling in the case, which is formally known as “O’Bannon v. NCAA.” A lawsuit over antitrust laws, the O’Bannon case has come to symbolize the greater fight over increased compensation for student-athletes.tmpplchld The lawsuit, which began after former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon saw his own likeness used in an NCAA basketball video game, has sparked a wave of change in NCAA athletics, including greater autonomy for members of the so-called “power five” conferences. Earlier this year, that autonomy led schools from the power five conferences to offer full cost of attendance to student athletes, which essentially amounts to enhanced scholarship in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $5,000 per year, depending on the school.tmpplchld Those payments will continue. But while the NCAA has adopted “cost of attendance” scholarships for some schools, college sports leaders have dug in their heels and fought for every inch in the battle over student-athlete compensation. Among those voices resistant to change: Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who has said that the loss of the collegiate model could cause irreparable harm. Others have sounded similar warnings.tmpplchld “I think you’ll see men’s Olympic sports go away as a result of the new funding challenges that are coming down the pipe,” Bowlsby said last year. “I think there may be tension among and between sports on campus and institutions that have different resources. It’s really unknown what the outcomes will be.”tmpplchld From that viewpoint, Wednesday’s ruling could save college athletic departments millions over the coming decade. But the legal fight over college athlete compensation is just beginning.tmpplchld ___tmpplchld (c)2015 The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Mo.)tmpplchld Visit The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Mo.) at www.kansascity.comtmpplchld Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.tmpplchld