In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles
The place to discuss general topics outside of Florida State
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
In dismissing a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues, a federal court judge Tuesday raised the stakes for the governing body of college sports as it defends its economic model.
Judge Claudia Wilken issued her ruling Tuesday, rejecting the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.
The NCAA had objected to the players amending their lawsuit last year to claim a share of all television game revenues, not just those from rebroadcasts.
"Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability that's based on the billions of dollars in revenue instead of tens or hundreds of millions," said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve."
A judge rejected the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.
This post was edited by FsuFanForever 18 months ago
Just FYI, this has nothing to do with the actual merits of their claims. It is simply a procedural dispute over whether they could include TV revenues as a claim in their complaint this long after filing it.
I honestly don't know enough about the legal system to discern the difference between relevant legal opinions, which create precedence and a open pandora's box for future fights against NCAA compensation... vs.... ESPN rat bastard sensationalist headline writers.
I'm assuming your telling me this is more rat bastards?
It's more of a filler article kinda spun in a way that makes it sound more interesting than it is. They wrote the headline in a way to imply to casual readers that they are taking a big step closer to getting those amounts. Sure, the amount in controversy just skyrocketed, but it doesn't necessarily make it any more likely they could actually win those claims.
Essentially, the court just said "Sure, you can ask for that, too."
This post was edited by Cuthbert 18 months ago
It would be a massive game changer if NCAA athletes could earn tv reves while playing....can you imagine the sales pitch miami would give recruits with the available ad revenue in the area over tally or gville????Heck FIU would out recruit us....
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports