Yahoo Sports 
NCAA asks Supreme Court to hear O'Bannon case
In March, the plaintiffs in the Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA antitrust case expressed a desire for the case to be presented to the Supreme Court. On Friday, the NCAA, in a separate court filing, did the same.
A September 2015 ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous decision which declared that the NCAA is “not above” federal anti-trust laws, meaning the NCAA can not limit its athletes to only receiving tuition, room, board and books. However, a previous decision from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken allowing college football and men’s basketball athletes to be paid up to $5,000 per year in deferred money was thrown out.
The NCAA believes providing an athlete’s cost of attendance is enough while the plaintiffs in the case hope the ruling regarding payments to players is reversed. It made its filing official on Friday.
[Check out Dr. Saturday on Tumblr for entertaining things you won’t see on the blog]
As a whole, the case centers on the NCAA’s use of the images and likenesses of student-athletes and their ability to receive compensation for that use. And in a broader sense, the case examines the NCAA’s definition of amateurism.
In multiple instances related to this case, including Friday, the NCAA has referenced 1984 Supreme Court case NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, a case that mainly focused on television rights for college sports. However, that case included the following language: “In order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA’s) ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.” The NCAA cites this when it defends its definition of amateurism and said Friday that the Ninth Circuit did not adhere to decisions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.
In Friday's filing, the association said the 9th Circuit panel failed to follow decisions of the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts "under which rules that define the character of NCAA athletics, and are thus essential for the NCAA's distinct product to exist, are upheld without" detailed analysis.
Having incorrectly undertaken this analysis, the NCAA argued that the 9th Circuit panel then further erred by holding the NCAA responsible for having allowed schools to cover some, but not all, of the expenses the 9th Circuit deemed appropriate. "That micromanagement was improper," the NCAA argued, adding that it was not for the 9th Circuit to determine which of the athletes' expenses should be covered.
The NCAA also returned to a First Amendment argument it made at several stages of the case, which began in the summer of 2009 and eventually boiled down to the plaintiffs seeking an injunction that would heavily overhaul the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players can receive for playing sports and for the use of the names, images and likenesses in in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games.
In Friday's petition, the NCAA wrote that the 9th Circuit erroneously interpreted the First Amendment as allowing student-athletes named or portrayed in video games to be protected by state laws governing the use of their names, images and likenesses. "That interpretation ... implicates a severe splintering of lower courts regarding important free-speech principles."
NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy also released a statement Friday: "For different reasons, both the NCAA and Ed O'Bannon believe the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used the wrong tests to analyze the NCAA rules. The NCAA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case to obtain unquestionable clarity on key issues of law affecting the NCAA and other similar organizations.
"In short, we are asking the Supreme Court to reaffirm its antitrust holding in the Board of Regents case, endorse the 9th Circuit's affirmation of amateurism, and define the appropriate scope of the First Amendment. We believe the Supreme Court can conduct this review properly and dictate the appropriate tests by accepting the questions we have presented and rejecting those presented by O'Bannon."
[Visit Dr. Saturday on Facebook for stories you might have missed and chat with the writers]
Despite the request from both sides, it is no certainty that the Supreme Court will take the case. On average, the Court hears about one percent of petitioned cases. In the past, the Supreme Court has heard three NCAA-related cases: NCAA vs. Board of Regents, NCAA vs. Jerry Tarkanian, and NCAA vs. R.M. Smith.
Back in August 2014, Wilken ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon), saying the NCAA cannot fully limit college football and basketball players from profiting off the use of their names, images and likeness. In her decision, Wilken said “NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools.”
The decision sparked a series of appeals and legal proceedings.
- - - - - - -
Sam Cooper is a writer for the Yahoo Sports blogs. Have a tip? Email him or follow him on Twitter!
