Northwestern Univ. and College Athletes Players Petitioner
College athletes cannot unionize.
O’Bannon v. NCAA
College athletes can be compensated in the form of scholarships/grants-in-aid but CANNOT receive cash payments untethered to their education expenses.
Eckles v. Sharman (p. 76)
Coaches contract. The court held that the record did not permit a determination, as a matter of law, that the option and pension clauses were unessential and could be severed. The court could not find that the coach had agreed to the assignment of his contract from a defunct team to plaintiff’s basketball team. The coach’s agent, through negotiations, should have reinforced the contractual language so as to indicate his client’s desire to maintain and continue both the option and pension clauses in case his contract was assigned.
Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Assoc. (p. 84)
Most of Coach Rodgers’ perquisites (special right or privilege enjoyed as a result of one’s position) should be deemed to be a part of his compensation and must be included in the severance package. A coach is entitled to any fringe benefits included within the contract, upon termination.
NCAA v. Board of Regents (p. 359)
The Supreme Court declared that the NCAA’s football television plan was unlawful under a rule of reason analysis. Deemed an unreasonable restraint of trade. The plan restricted that total number of football games an NCAA member could televise, and also stopped member schools from selling TV rights except in accordance with the plans. The decision set the networks free to negotiate TV contracts with the major football schools.
Smith v. NCAA (p. 365)
A college volleyball player sued the NCAA on the grounds that their “Post-Baccalaureate Bylaw” violated the Sherman Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments. She had her BA and wanted to use her eligibility while in law school, which was a different school than her undergrad. The court held that the NCAA’s eligibility rules were not connected to their commercial and business activities (like TV packaging), thus, the Sherman act did not apply.