Author: Wendy Hillger & Scripta Ad Astra Staff
It has been a little over a week since U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California issued her August 8, 2014 landmark ruling against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) in O’Bannon v. NCAA. While it is too early to know the ramifications of the ruling (the NCAA has already stated it will appeal), the opinion has roundly been seen as favorable for collegiate athletes.
How The Challenge Started
The road to get to this ruling did not start with the lead plaintiff, former UCLA basketball star, Ed O’Bannon, simply filing suit. Rather, Mr. O’Bannon stood on the accomplishments of an evolution in public opinion and challenges that chipped away at the NCAA’s “defense of amateurism”.
The challenge to NCAA’s reign was, in part, started by the very man who helped commercialize college sports, Sonny Vaccaro. After spending decades building endorsement relationships between shoe companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok, with universities all over the country, Mr. Vaccaro eventually soured on what he saw as colleges taking advantage of athletes. While universities and the NCAA were making money hand-over-fist from merchandising, television rights, and other endorsement deals, they were withholding those revenues from the athletes (called “student-athletes” by the NCAA for the purposes of avoiding paying workers compensation insurance), suggesting that these athletes were playing as students and amateurs, not professionals, and thus not entitled to that money.