View Single Post
Old 09-30-2015, 01:16 PM   #41
Emperor Smeat
Former TPWW Royalty
 
Emperor Smeat's Avatar
 
Posts: 66,588
Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Emperor Smeat makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ESPN
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting student-athlete compensation, but also ruled against a plan to pay student-athletes as much as $5,000 annually.

In a split decision, the three-judge panel ruled that U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken's plan -- which would allow schools to pay athletes as much as $5,000 annually, beyond the cost of attendance, for the use of their name, image and likeness -- was "erroneous."
Their main complaints against paying student athletes was a possible bigger legal mess if college sports lost its amateur status and didn't want the favoritism gap between student athletes and regular students to grow any larger.

Schools can still offer some compensation but it has to be as scholarships and not as cash.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...antitrust-laws
Emperor Smeat is offline