Practically speaking, it looks to be a huge win for the NCAA. The ruling only says the NCAA can’t cap educational expenses not already included in cost of attendance. Many of the stuff listed is already permitted in some form or another, other than the post-eligibility graduate funding and internships.
The NCAA can still cap expenses that aren’t education-related. Seems like an appeal from both sides is likely, as being told once again you’re violating anti-trust laws isn’t good, and the plaintiffs got nothing close to what they wanted.
EDIT: This might belong on Cartier.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm just saying that I have read numerous summaries and I haven't seen that argued that way anywhere else.
"Among the items U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said these athletes may receive are scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school. The judge also appeared to open the possibility of athletes being able to receive cash or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation, albeit under some constraints.
At the same time, however, her 104-page ruling prevents athletes from receiving unlimited benefits, as the plaintiffs had hoped.
The NCAA "may continue ... to limit compensation and benefits that are unrelated to education," Wilken ruled.
She also said that the association may adopt a definition of compensation and benefits that are “related to education.”
The association can limit "academic or graduation awards of incentives, provided in cash or cash-equivalent" but that limit cannot be "less than the maximum amount of compensation that an individual could receive in an academic school year in participation, championship, or other special achievement awards (combined)."
It seems a limited ruling and a less than complete victory for the plaintiffs. Nothing Earth shattering.
It seems to mean/will cause much less than the all encompassing changes the plaintiffs wanted and some predicted.
that was the line I was specifically referring to in the previous post.
I have not seen that anywhere else; to be fair, I have not seen it written elsewhere as a huge win for the players either.
That said, schools can now give expensive laptops, electronics, etc related to "studying" to players? That is a new one in this arms race.
The NCAA is dumb and should have just let kids profit off of image and likeness years ago; they're going to end up spending a lot more in the long run.
He called it a big win and that there was a lot in there for the NCAA to like.
[I agree completely with you that the NCAA should just let kids profit off their name or image, though that wasn't really the issue at stake here.]
Schools can give their students laptops and tablets right now, not even on an issue and retrieval basis, per NCAA rules and the Student Assistance Fund. They can also provide other expendable supplies specific to academic work, as well as expenses related to program testing (prep courses, test fees, etc.) and other educational or career development (seminar, in-person interview, etc.). There's currently a lot of wiggle room for institutions to provide academic and career-related expenses.
There were a few notable items in the ruling not currently permitted, like being able to promise to pay for a kid's grad school after they finish their sports career there. The ability to pay for necessary coursework at other schools was nearly passed last year by the NCAA, so that probably won't be too hard. The academic and/or graduation awards equal to athletic awards will be interesting. Is a school going to tell a kid, "Hey, congrats on getting a 3.0 this year, here's a $50 gift card"?
I think the key component of the decision that makes it a win for the NCAA is that she draws a clear line of demarcation between college and pro amateurs, drawing a distinction between education-related expenses (NCAA cannot restrict) and unlimited cash payments unrelated to education (NCAA can continue to restrict). The NCAA can continue to use cost of attendance, which is set by each school's financial aid office following federal law, to cap non-education related expenses. The ruling allows the NCAA to define education related expenses and for conferences individually to restrict such expenses in a more restrictive manner if they choose to do so. Further, this ruling does not appear to affect current scholarship limits.
There are two big knocks against the NCAA in this decision. First, yet another ruling saying they were violating antitrust laws. At some point, that may bite them down the road in another case and is just bad optics. Second, and probably more importantly, Judge Wilken noted that the NCAA has no viable definition of amateurism or a consistent clear way of differentiating between permissible and impermissible forms of “compensation." That's a more recent issue, actually, due in large part to all the concessions the NCAA has made toward student-athletes (paying for parents to fly to the Final Four, providing awards for athletic achievement, loss of value insurance, providing mental health professionals or other consultants, etc.). For the most part, these are all good things, whether they help their kids with burdensome expenses or if it's just the right thing to do, but these small things add up and slowly chip away at a defense or suggestion that the NCAA has a hard line stance between amateur and professional.
I appreciate that this might be seen as a victory for the NCAA; most of the stuff I have read on it seems to suggest that the anti-trust stuff is going to get them in the end, but this is obviously not my area of expertise. There seemed to be some stuff related to laptops/electronics that I had read in a different article but perhaps I am not recalling that correctly.
At the end of the day I just keep coming back to the idea that the NCAA is just trying to keep hold of this so hard and it doesn't appear that the judges are really on their side, even if they gain small "victories" here and there they seem destined to lose the war. A smart plan (I would think) would be to establish something for image and likeness that they can monitor and cut their losses. I worry that by being so stubborn about the whole thing they are going to end up killing the golden goose and many schools will end up dropping football.
It’s not even a big school vs. little school thing. The small schools will pretty much go with whatever, as there’s not much they can do about it anyway. The big schools are busy looking at how their decisions affect the bottom line. I’m surprised they haven’t budged at all, even in something like letting students have a YouTube page that earns ad revenue. We’re on the same page there.
Probably worth noting that Judge Wilken also made O’Bannon decision, so while there are certainly other judges who would rule against the NCAA, so far it’s primarily been just her in these highest profile cases.