Court will not revisit ruling

NCAA pay case

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 17, (RTRS): A US appeals court on Wednesday rejected a request by college athletes to revisit part of a ruling in a high-profile case brought by athletes seeking a slice of the billions of dollars universities reap from football and basketball.

More than 20 current and former athletes filed an antitrust class action against the NCAA. The lead plaintiff, Ed O’Bannon, won a national basketball championship with UCLA in 1995.

Earlier this year the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association must permit schools to provide student-athletes sums covering up to the cost of attendance. However, the three-judge 9th Circuit panel also reversed a lower court order providing for up to $5,000 per year beyond that amount.

The athletes had asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider its ruling on the $5,000 payment before a larger, 11-judge panel. Such small payments would not harm consumer demand for college sports, they argued.

Representatives for the athletes and the NCAA could not immediately be reached for comment.

Colleges are under mounting public pressure to give athletes better benefits. Critics say the NCAA’s scholarship policy short-changes athletes, who risk injury and devote many hours to practice sessions, travel and competition. Most college athletes do not go on to play professionally.

The NCAA argues that it is defending amateurism in college sports, and has said it allows schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance.

In its September ruling, the 9th Circuit called the difference between paying education-related expenses and offering cash sums “a quantum leap” that could damage the unique amateurism of college sports.

Broadcasters, including Walt Disney Co and CBS Corp , rallied behind the NCAA, arguing in court filings that the idea that each participant in a team sporting event has an individual right of publicity “is simply wrong.”

The issue refers to an athlete’s right to publicize and monetize his or her own name and image.

The 9th Circuit said athletes have a right of publicity in video games, but it declined to decide whether they also have such rights in live TV broadcasts or archival footage.