Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA loses O'Bannon Case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GTFLETCH" data-source="post: 67720" data-attributes="member: 1668"><p>Found this on another thread:</p><p> </p><p>I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right.</p><p>For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that.</p><p>And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players.</p><p>If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GTFLETCH, post: 67720, member: 1668"] Found this on another thread: I'm no lawyer so more than willing to be educated by someone who is, but just reading the summary of this decision, the judge seems to be ruling for the O'Bannon plaintiffs symbolically and in principle, but her bottom-line caveats about $5,000 annual caps and putting the money into escrow until after they graduate, and the NCAA's "compelling interest" in protecting the "student-athlete" concept seems to take away with the left hand what was seemingly given by the right. For really big-time athletes, like a Johnny Manzel, it seems that they would get a paltry $20,000 at most, when their licensing value is probably far greater than that. And, she also seems to imply that Title IX is no barrier to companies paying football and basketball players more for their likenesses than women's sport players. If i was the NCAA, I'd think long and hard about appealing this, as the amount of money the judge seems to be saying that the amount of money the NCAA must allow players to be able receive for their likenesses is not very significant and certainly doesn't change the fundamental structure of big-time athletics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA loses O'Bannon Case
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top