Ever since Ive been in the law biz Ive admired US District Judge Claudia Wilken. And here she is in the OBannon v. NCAA decision, kicking the you-know-what out of the hypocrites who run (and profit from, on a massive scale) college sports, football and basketball in particular: The historical record that the NCAA cites as evidence of its longstanding commitment to amateurism is unpersuasive. This record reveals that the NCAA has revised its rules governing student-athlete compensation numerous times over the years, sometimes in significant and contradictory ways. Rather than evincing the associations adherence to a set of core principles, this history documents how malleable the NCAAs definition of amateurism has been since its founding. The associations current rules demonstrate that, even today, the NCAA does not consistently adhere to a single definition of amateurism. A Division I tennis recruit can preserve his amateur status even if he accepts ten thousand dollars in prize money the year before he enrolls in college. A Division I track and field recruit, however, would forfeit his athletic eligibility if he did the same. Similarly, an FBS football player may maintain his amateur status if he accepts a Pell grant that brings his total financial aid package above the cost of attendance. But the same football player would no longer be an amateur if he were to decline the Pell grant and, instead, receive an equivalent sum of money from his school for the use of his name, image, and likeness during live game telecasts. Such inconsistencies are not indicative of core principles. Go Claudia! I look forward to the inevitable appeal(s).
Posted on: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 02:39:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015