2. Affected Parties
1) Former players (1956 – present)
a) 20x previous football, basketball players
b) Include Sam Keller (case consolidation)
2) Organizations
a) NCAA
b) Electronic Arts (EA) Sports
c) Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC)
3) Future players
4) Other cases use as precedant
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 2
3. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 3
1) Background
2) Premise
3) Names, Images, Likenesses (NILs)
4) Key terms § 1 of the Sherman Act
a) Per Se Violations
b) Rule of reason
c) Horizontal restraints
d) Vertical restraints
4. US District Court Ruling
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 4
1) US District Court – District of Northern California
a) Honorable Claudia Wilkins
b) 08 Aug, 2014
2) Restraint of trade in college education market
a) No readily available substitute
b) Unique market, price fixing occurred
c) Amounts to restraint on trade
3) Restraint of trade in college licensing market
a) Subsets: game telecasts, video games, archival footage
4) Challenged rules restrain trade
5) 2x Remedies
5. Appellate Court Ruling
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 5
1) 9th Circuit Court of appeals (30 September, 2015)
a) Justices Thomas (Chief Justice), Bybee, Quist
b) Chief Justice Thomas affirmed and dissented
2) Reasons for appeal (NCAA)
3) Significant anticompetitive effects
a) Face scrutiny under antitrust laws
b) Analyzed under rule of reason
4) Remedy review/decision
a) Full cost of attendance scholarship increase (+)
b) $5000 deferred compensation (-)
5) En Banc Review
6) SCOTUS
6. Socially Responsible Activities
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 6
1) Two possible options
a) Tiered stipend system
b) Retirement option
2) Tiered stipend system
a) $100 increments/month per athlete
3) Retirement option
a) $10,000 or $20,000 upon leaving school
b) Incentive to obtain undergraduate +/or graduate degrees
c) Would not be a trust
d) Payments to account of choice
e) <10% of NCAA revenue
7. Managerial Implications
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 7
1) Hypercompetitive environment
2) Business model review
a) Revisit, hold honest discussions every 3 – 5 years
b) Vision, mission, goals, values, and objectives
3) NCAA failed to revisit business model
9. References
BMBA 510 Spring 2016 9
Edelman, M. (2014). The District Court Decision in O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: A Small Step Forward for College Athlete Rights, and
a Gateway for Far Grander Change. National Collegiate Athletic Association: A Small Step Forward for College Athlete Rights, and a Gateway for Far Grander Change (Fall
2014), 72
Federal Bar Association (2015). About US Federal Courts [Slide 5 Photograph]. Retrieved on 28 April, 2016 from http://www.fedbar.org/Public-
Messaging/About-US-Federal-Courts_1.aspx
Mathewson, T. G. (04 March, 2016). NCAA Wants More Time to File Supreme Court Petition. Retrieved on 30 April, 2016 from
http://www.educationdive.com/news/ncaa-wants-more-time-to-file-supreme-court-petition-in-obannon-case/415060/
NickCKM (13 April, 2013). Should College Athletes Get Paid? Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA [slide 2 photograph]. Retrieved on 03 May, 2016 from
https://sportbizbuzz.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/should-college-athletes-be-paid-ed-obannon-vs-ncaa/
NNDB (2016). John Sherman [slide 3 photograph]. Retrieved on 03 May, 2016 from http://www.nndb.com/people/278/000050128/
No Author (n.d.). Google Images [Slide 7 photograph]. Retrieved on 03 May, 2016 from
https://www.google.com/search?q=NCAA+profits&biw=1280&bih=728&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEx8OS9cDMAhUI7WMKHQf4AmgQ_AUIBygC
#imgdii=O0Oa8TZg-2ttuM%3A%3BO0Oa8TZg-2ttuM%3A%3BWmVEmVexyamB5M%3A&imgrc=O0Oa8TZg-2ttuM%3A
O’Bannon v. NCAA; EA; CLC, C 09-3329 CW (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, 2014)
O’Bannon v. NCAA; EA; CLC, 14-16601, 14-17068 (9th Cir., 2015) “OPINION”
O’Bannon v. NCAA; EA; CLC, Nos. 14-16601, 14-17068 (9th Cir., 2015) “EN BANC DENIAL”
Settlement info (n.d.). NCAA EA Likeness Settlement [Slide 4 photograph]. Retrieved on 03 May, 2016 from
http://settlementonline.blogspot.com/2014/11/ncaa-ea-likeness-settlementcom-ncaa-ea.html
Smith, C. (22 August, 2013). NCAA Football Video Game is Worth Over $75,000 per year for top teams. Retrieved on 28 April, 2016 from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/08/22/ncaa-football-video-game-is-worth-over-75000-per-year-for-top-teams/#16e03f8c1e26
Statista (2016). Revenue of the NCAA from television broadcast payments and licensing rights from 2010 to 2020 (in million U.S. dollars). Retrieved on 28
April, 2016 from http://www.statista.com/statistics/219608/ncaa-revenue-from-television-rights-agreement/
Taylor, N.F. (19 June, 2015). What is Corporate Social responsibility [ Slide 6 Photograph]. Retrieved on 03 May, 2016 from
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4679-corporate-social-responsibility.html
