For the longest time the NCAA has used the veil of amateurism as a way to act monopolistically and take advantage of student-athletes. They successfully stifled financial competition in college sports (Barro) and have handed out hefty paychecks to just about everyone in the industry except for the actual laborers themselves. However, as collegiate sports have developed into a billion dollar industry, former and current players (specifically FBS football and Division 1 basketball players) have begun to speak up and challenge the restrictions imposed by the NCAA. Recently, 22 former and current collegiate athletes, headed by former UCLA basketball star, Edward O’Bannon, brought a class action lawsuit against the NCAA to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. My policy paper discusses this case, its ramifications and the reasons why it was necessary. Ultimately, I offer recommendations to the NCAA as to how they should approach the groundbreaking changes set to take place in the near future.
The link to download my policy paper can be found here:
This short article was published on the NCAA website just two days after the official court ruling in the O’Bannon v. NCAA antitrust class action lawsuit. The article discusses the NCAA’s plans to appeal the ruling, as they feel they have not violated any antitrust laws. The article mentions the fact that the NCAA agrees with the fact that athletic scholarships still leave the athletes with expenses, as the cost of attendance is greater than what is covered and allowed by these scholarships. They have claimed that “the Division 1 Board of Directors passed a new governance model allowing schools to better support student-athletes, including covering the full cost of attendance, one of the central components of the injunction” (NCAA). Continue reading NCAA Responds to Court Ruling→
This study, conducted by Ramogi Huma, the President of the National College Players Association and Ellen Staurowsky, Ed.D., a professor of Sports Management at Drexel University
“documents the shortfall that exists between what a ‘full’ scholarship covers and what the full cost of attending college is compared to the federal poverty guideline, an estimation of players’ fair market value, and offers perspective on the disproportional levels of compensation to which college sport officials have access compared to the limits imposed on revenue-generating athletes who serve as the talent and inspire the financial investment in the product of college sport.” (3) Continue reading The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sports→
Edward O’Bannon vs. NCAA was an antitrust class action lawsuit brought about in 2009, receiving an official ruling in The United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 8th, 2014. The plaintiffs in the case were a group of current and former college student-athletes seeking to challenge the NCAA’s set of rules that ban student-athletes from receiving a share of the revenue that the NCAA and members schools earn from the sale of licenses to use the student-athletes’ names, images, and likenesses in video games and other footage. The plaintiffs claimed the rules violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits business activities that the federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive. On the other hand, the NCAA claims “that its restrictions on student-athlete compensation are necessary to uphold its educational mission and to protect the popularity of collegiate sports” (2). Other defendants include both the Electronic Arts Inc. and the Collegiate Licensing Company
“To empower people with the knowledge and inspiration needed to grow and strengthen their most important relationships for a lifetime of happiness” (eHarmony Support Home Page, 2013). This is the mission statement of eHarmony, a market-leading online matchmaking service. Whereas other online matchmaking services attract users looking for short-term relationships, such as one-night stands, eHarmony has remained an industry leader in the long-term relationship segment of the market since their founding in 2000. Continue reading eHarmony: Ethically Discriminating→
[It’s the year 2020 and Mike Daisey has retired from his career as a monologist, author, actor and raconteur. He has rededicated himself to spreading awareness about the poor overseas working conditions employed by many U.S. corporations after he was caught fabricating the facts of his monologue, The Agony & Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. Recently, he has been hunting down CEOs of corporations that mistreat their overseas workers and giving them a piece of his mind.] Continue reading Heavyweight Title Fight: Mike Daisey vs. Phil Knight→
Many people are still forgetting to rate postsand like/unlike comments. Also, make sure you remember to add a category and tags to your post so that they can be easily found! Lastly, make sure to use the “read more” feature (people are still forgetting to do this).
I’ve been asked this question, or questions similar to this, on numerous occasions. I never know what to say. My knee-jerk reaction is to simply name a favorite athlete or musician of mine, such as Magic Johnson or Bruce Springsteen. This time around, as I thought more and more about the prompt, I came to the conclusion that if I could have dinner with only one person, it would need to be someone that I felt I would both relate with, and would be able to give me monumental and influential advise/insight about life and the meaning of life. These conditions have led me to choose Bobby Jones as the one person I would have dinner with. Continue reading The Meaning of Life: The Perspective of Bobby Jones→