Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
FILE - In this April 3, 1995 photo, UCLA's Ed O'Bannon celebrates after his team won the championship NCAA game against Arkansas in Seattle. O'Bannon won a collegiate basketball's national championship ring as a member of the 1995 UCLA Bruins. Sonny Vaccaro signed Michael Jordan to his first sneaker deal and made millions as a shoe company executive in charge of endorsements. Together they are seeking to radically alter the NCAA's multibillion dollar business model by leading a legal challenge that seeks a significant revenue share for amateur athletes who receive nothing but scholarships even when their images are used to sell video games, DVDs and other memorabilia. (AP Photo/Eric Draper)
O’Bannon v. NCAA has the potential to change sports as we know them

First Published Jun 07 2014 10:36 am • Last Updated Jun 07 2014 09:31 pm

The NCAA athletics model is on the verge of change. That much is certain.

Unclear is to what extent one federal judge, Claudia Wilken, will drive that change, and whether she’ll shift it into high gear in the next few weeks when she rules in O’Bannon v. NCAA.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

It’s been billed by some as the most significant lawsuit in college sports history, while others have said it’s not even the most important legal action against the NCAA at the moment.

Both statements might be true.

The Cliff’s Notes version is that former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and 20 other plaintiffs are asking Wilken to stop the NCAA from requiring athletes to sign away rights to profit off their "likeness," which they say is unfairly exploited for use in televised games, stock footage, merchandise and ticket sales.

Here are a few things to ponder before — barring a last-minute settlement or other legal hijinks — the bench trial gets underway Monday in Oakland:

Who’s the favorite? » It has been widely reported that the NCAA is in trouble.

That’s largely based on the perception that Wilken favors the plaintiffs. She has repeatedly denied attempts to delay the trial, and she commented at a summary judgment hearing that "I don’t think amateurism is going to be a useful word here."

Ouch, right?

story continues below
story continues below

But what Wilken seems to have meant is that amateurism has a subjective definition. The NCAA’s core argument is that its rules — whether they constitute amateurism or not — are what even the playing field between teams and attract fans. If there’s no market for student-athletes’ likenesses without those rules, then the plaintiffs’ points may be moot.

The argument might have merit, says Salt Lake sports attorney Mark O. Van Wagoner.

The rules are "intended to, I think, replicate the sort of competition that has always existed between colleges, before there was so much money in it," he said. "I think they can argue that that’s an important product, and that people want to see that."

Van Wagoner added: "I don’t think any of this is a lay-down hand for anybody."

What happens if O’Bannon wins? » That’s awfully murky.

The plaintiffs suggest that college athletes might then negotiate for group licensing contracts, with the profits being placed into a trust for them to access after college. But even though those licenses earn the NCAA $4 billion each year, whatever is then split among thousands of student-athletes might not amount to riches.

Those who stand to gain the most would be beneficiaries of individual endorsement deals, i.e. the Jabari Parkers and Johnny Manziels, who might also be able to sign with agents.

Those who stand to lose include athletic department staff and athletes in non-revenue sports.

Utah athletic director Chris Hill says that if the ruling or others like it threaten the foundation of the existing student-athlete model, "Then you have to decide if that model’s worth it. If that model can be sustained. Do people still go to school? And if they don’t go to school, why would a university attach its reputation to a semi-professional team?"

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.