Appeals court rules against NCAA in antitrust case

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that the NCAA's rules on limiting what student-athletes can receive violate antitrust laws.

However, the three-judge panel scrapped a plan which would allow schools to provide athletes as much as $5,000 per year in deferred compensation.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

In August 2014, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of those claiming the NCAA violates antitrust laws by inhibiting athletes from receiving a portion of revenues generated from the use of their images, issuing an injunction requiring the NCAA to let its members pay athletes through a trust fund.

The case dates back to 2009, when former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed a lawsuit looking for a change to what FBS football and Division I men's basketball players can receive for the use of their names and images in television broadcasts and video games.

NCAA president Mark Emmert supports the court's decision to discard the $5,000 compensation.

“We have not completely reviewed the court’s 78-page decision, but we agree with the court that the injunction 'allowing students to be paid cash compensation of up to $5,000 per year was erroneous.'" Emmert said in a statement. "Since Aug. 1, 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.”