Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA is an antitrust class action lawsuit filed from Ex-UCLA star Ed O’Bannon to the NCAA. O’Bannon filed this case on behalf of not only himself, but also the rest of the Division 1 basketball and football players. The reason for this case began when O’Bannon saw what he thought was a player that looked almost identical to him on an NCAA video game by EA sports. This video game player had the same look, weight, height, and stats and was clearly Ed O’Bannon. After he left school he wondered why he wasn’t compensated for his likeness, O’Bannon thought, “How can the NCAA make money off of my name”? O’Bannon thought that this was a clear violation of antitrust, and he believed that upon graduation a former student athlete should …show more content…
Like stated before, this case is about the violation of antitrust and specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act specifically promotes trade and bans artificially fixing prices. O’Bannon is arguing is that if he wasn’t forced into signing a restricting contract by the NCAA, he would have been able to receive money from someone else for the use of his likeness. O’Bannon was deprived on the opportunity to his own right of publicity. This argument seems valid enough to prove that the NCAA is indeed violating antitrust, but the hardest part to overcome is their amateurism and eligibility rules. The NCAA has established their rules as laws within the court system today by emphasizing that student athletes are students first. Sense these rules have already been established, it allows for there to be exceptions to the antirust laws. However, in the case of O’Bannon it was clear to see that the NCAA (and EA sports) were taking an overwhelming advantage college athletes and O’Bannon’s likeness, and in doing so made for an “unreasonable” restraint of competiveness and trade by the NCAA. The reason the Appeals Court denied Judge Claudia Wilken’s injunction of $5,000 a year for athletes was because the antirust laws aren’t really concerned with setting …show more content…
It has become obvious that the NCAA is looked at as form of a cartel or a monopoly to college athletics, but still no one has been able to break through their amateurism rules and allow for the paying of players. I keep looking through this case, and the more I look at it the more I agree with the Judge Wilken’s decision. It is very clear that the NCAA used Ed O’Bannon’s (among other athletes) likeness in the video game, without consent, and without the ability for O’Bannon to make money off of it himself. The NCAA engaged in anticompetitive business behavior and did not promote trade, which is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I do understand that in this case there must be an unreasonable restraint on trade, and many argue that this isn’t unreasonable because the NCAA is acting as a natural monopoly. But, because they are acting in the best interest of themselves instead of the athletes I believe this is in violation, and I agree that O’Bannon should be compensated for the uses of his image. However, I find it hard to believe that this case did not open the floodgates for the paying of college athletes. I believe O’Bannon’s team showed enough antirust violations by the NCAA to prove that they were pocketing millions of dollars on athlete’s likenesses, and the players should be compensated for it. I thought Judge Wilken’s amount of $5,000 per year per player to be