Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Key rulings coming in key college athlete payment case

The case could force the NCAA to share billions of dollars in revenues with student-athletes whose images it uses as merchandise

As a power forward for the UCLA Bruins, Ed O’Bannon won a national championship and the 1995 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player award. However, nobody could have guessed that his most lasting NCAA memory could possibly occur nearly 20 years later with a lawsuit that threatens to change the fabric of college athletics.

A district court is set to issue rulings in a case, O’Bannon v. NCAA, which could force the National Collegiate Athletic Association to share billions of dollars in revenues with student-athletes whose images are used for merchandise. While a trial in the class action case is set for June, both sides have asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to decide some major antitrust issues in the case beforehand.

Currently, the NCAA does not compensate players for use of likenesses in media past allowing scholarships to the athletes’ respective academic institutions. O’Bannon, who filed the class action suit in 2009 after seeing his likeness used in a college basketball video game, argues that this use amounts to free labor for the NCAA.

However, the NCAA argues that amateurism rules bar student-athletes from receiving these types of payments. If forced to pay more than the price of education, the NCAA says, then college sports could not function. The association also argues that it does not actively restrict player rights like the suit claims.

Electronic Arts, the maker of the video game which used O’Bannon’s likeness without his permission, was also named as a defendant in the original suit. However, the company settled the suit out of court in 2013 for a $40 million price tag. Electronic Arts no longer makes NCAA-branded college football and basketball games.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Judge Wilken said her order in the case should come “relatively soon,” but also noted that she would only be deciding certain aspects of the case and not the case in its entirety.

The O’Bannon case may be the only college amateurism case close to its finish, but it is not the only front on which the NCAA is being attacked. The National Labor Relations Board is currently conducting hearings as to whether college athletes should be considered employees and allowed to unionize, with the Northwestern University football team and the College Athletes Players Association as a test case.


For more on the legal arm of the education world, check out these InsideCounsel articles:

For-profit schools feeling legal pressure

New online rating system will help pinpoint good and bad contracts for consumers

ABA calls for reform of legal education system

Law schools implement corporate product development methodologies to produce ‘practice ready’ lawyers

Assistant Editor

author image

Zach Warren

Zach Warren is Assistant Editor of InsideCounsel magazine, where he oversees online content submissions and administers InsideCounsel's enewsletters. Zach specializes in new media and multimedia...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.