Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Trump Webinar Series
    Mental Health Forum
    Using Big Data to Improve Social Mobility
Sign In
Athletics

O’Bannon Ruling Heightens Debate Over Pay for College Players

By Jack Stripling October 1, 2015
A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws in its restrictions on players’ ability to trade on their images and likenesses. But the court struck down a prior ruling that would have allowed for annual $5,000 payments to athletes.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws in its restrictions on players’ ability to trade on their images and likenesses. But the court struck down a prior ruling that would have allowed for annual $5,000 payments to athletes.Joe Robbins, Getty Images

A federal appeals court’s ruling on Wednesday will fuel and potentially complicate a national debate about whether college athletes are entitled to a bigger slice of the dizzying revenues that they help to generate for top-tier athletics programs.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a district court’s ruling that said members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association should be permitted to pay players $5,000 a year for the use of their names and likenesses. The panel contended that the figure was arbitrary and that even small payments to athletes threatened the NCAA’s amateurism model.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

A federal appeals court’s ruling on Wednesday will fuel and potentially complicate a national debate about whether college athletes are entitled to a bigger slice of the dizzying revenues that they help to generate for top-tier athletics programs.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a district court’s ruling that said members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association should be permitted to pay players $5,000 a year for the use of their names and likenesses. The panel contended that the figure was arbitrary and that even small payments to athletes threatened the NCAA’s amateurism model.

But the court affirmed that the NCAA had violated antitrust rules by restricting players’ ability to trade on their images and likenesses, including jersey sales and video games.

The case was brought by Edward C. O’Bannon Jr., a former basketball standout at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The decision gave both plaintiffs and defendants some cause for optimism. Mr. O’Bannon and his lawyers celebrated the court’s assertion that “the NCAA is not above the antitrust laws” and that the association had been overly restrictive of payments to players in the name of preserving its tradition of amateurism.

Mark A. Emmert, the NCAA’s president, said the association agreed with the court’s finding that it was “erroneous” to suggest, as the district court had, that athletes be paid $5,000 on top of the full cost of attendance. The expanded payments go beyond tuition, room, board, and textbooks to cover additional expenses, such as gasoline, groceries, and travel home.

The appeals court’s ruling, which agreed that the NCAA must allow its members to cover the full cost of attendance for athletes, has little practical effect at this point because recent rule changes already allow for that.

The court’s decision, however, could affect other legal challenges to the NCAA, whose wealthiest members have been criticized for paying coaches millions of dollars while some athletes struggle to get by. Among the most closely watched cases is one brought by Martin Jenkins, a former Clemson University football player who seeks a “free market” for college athletes to be paid. A hearing to decide whether the lawsuit may proceed as a class action is scheduled for Thursday.

Mr. Emmert on Wednesday gave no indication of whether the NCAA might appeal the decision, but he bristled at challenges to the group’s autonomy.

“Since August 1,” Mr. Emmert said, “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.”

‘Real Money at Issue’

The NCAA has argued that its amateur model is part of its market appeal, suggesting that college-sports fans are drawn to competition among students who are not paid professionals. The court affirmed that amateurism does have value, but it rejected arguments that small payments beyond educational expenses, specifically $5,000 a year, would not threaten the amateur status of athletes.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Having found that amateurism is integral to the NCAA’s market,” the judges ruled, “the district court cannot plausibly conclude that being a poorly paid professional collegiate athlete is ‘virtually as effective’ for that market as being” an amateur.

Michael A. Carrier, a professor of law at Rutgers University at Camden, said that aspect of the ruling has far-reaching implications for future legal battles.

“If this court is rejecting an amount of even as small as $5,000, then it’s tough to see how players will do better going forward,” Mr. Carrier said.

Others saw it differently. Exavier B. Pope, a sports-law analyst, said the ruling was a “Pandora’s box” because it affirmed that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws with its restrictions on player compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This opens the door ultimately for athletes to get paid,” Mr. Pope said.

Indeed, the court did poke holes in some core NCAA arguments. The panel found wanting, for example, the association’s claim that its regulations limiting compensation for athletes amounted to “eligibility” rules, rather than restrictions on commercial activity that should be subject to scrutiny under antitrust laws. That argument, the court found, is “but sleight of hand.”

“There is real money at issue here,” the decision says.

Wednesday’s ruling adds fodder to an increasingly heated discussion about the welfare of college athletes, who are often perceived as an exploited class in what has become a big-money enterprise.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gene A. Marsh, who served for nine years on the NCAA’s Division I Committee on Infractions, said he had seen a marked shift in public opinion about compensation for players. There may be disagreements about how much athletes deserve, he said, but there is eroding tolerance for the disparities that exist between wealthy coaches and the economically disadvantaged students who often play for them.

“Now very well educated, thoughtful people, who are not necessarily crazy fans, think that a lot — not all, but a lot — of the NCAA model is nuts and indefensible,” said Mr. Marsh, an emeritus professor of sports law at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Bannon described the ruling as just one step in a long march toward fairer treatment of players.

“It’s a good day for the college athlete,” he said. “I think it’s a victory in that we can move forward and take a step forward, but by no means are we done.”

Jack Stripling covers college leadership, particularly presidents and governing boards. Follow him on Twitter @jackstripling, or email him at jack.stripling@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the October 9, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy Athletics
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
stripling-jack.jpg
About the Author
Jack Stripling
Jack Stripling is a senior writer at The Chronicle and host of its podcast, College Matters from The Chronicle. Follow him on Twitter @jackstripling.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Conti-0127
Finance
Here’s What Republicans’ Proposed College-Endowment Tax Could Look Like
Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
The Fine Print
The NIH Is Requiring Grantees to Follow Trump’s Anti-Trans Executive Order
New York City police arrested dozens of Pro-Palestinian protesters on Columbia University on Wednesday evening after they took over part of a central library in New York, USA on May 7, 2025.
'A Different Playbook'
Facing New Protests and Political Pressure, Colleges Are Taking a Harder Line
President of Haverford College Wendy Raymond (L) and President of DePaul University Robert Manuel (R) testify during a hearing before the House Education and Workforce Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on May 7, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Leadership
Under Republicans’ Scrutiny, College Presidents Apologize for Their Handling of Campus Antisemitism

From The Review

Illustration showing two men and giant books, split into two sides—one blue and one red. The two men are reaching across the center color devide to shake hands.
The Review | Opinion
Left and Right Agree: Higher Ed Needs to Change
By Michael W. Clune
University of British Columbia president and vice-chancellor Santa Ono pauses while speaking during a memorandum of understanding  signing ceremony between the Tsilhqot'in National Government and UBC, in Vancouver, British Columbia, on Dec. 8, 2021.
The Review | Opinion
Santa Ono Flees for Florida
By Silke-Maria Weineck
GarciaBudgets-0430.jpg
The Review | Opinion
A Looming Crisis for Public Colleges
By Tanya I. Garcia

Upcoming Events

Plain_USF_AIWorkForce_VF.png
New Academic Programs for an AI-Driven Work Force
Cincy_Plain.png
Hands-On Career Preparation
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin