Tag Archives: student-athlete compensation

On Appeal, Former USC Linebacker Tackles Judge’s Ruling with Misapplication of Law Claims

In September 2016, Lamar Dawson, a former USC linebacker, filed a class-action suit against both the NCAA and Pac-12 Conference alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Law. Dawson claimed the NCAA and Pac-12 failed to pay athletes minimum wage, failed to pay overtime, and failed to make timely compensation to athletes. He argued that he, among other student athletes, were without a doubt employees. The NCAA and Pac-12 moved to dismiss the suit in January 2017, and in April, Judge…

Continue Reading....

NCAA Argues O’Bannon Win Insufficient for a Grant of $42 Million in Attorneys’ Fees

The NCAA has moved for the Ninth Circuit to deny a $42 million attorney’s fees request regarding the underlying litigation over rules barring student-athletes from receiving compensation for their names, images, and likeness, as the NCAA alleged the win was only partial, and thus, such a large award is inappropriate. As background, a California district court issued an injunction, which prevented the NCAA from capping student-athletes financial aid amounts below the full cost of attendance, and that student-athletes could receive up to $5,000 per…

Continue Reading....

Former USC Football Player Urges California Court Not to Dismiss FLSA Class Action Suit

On Monday, February 27, 2017, former USC football player, Lamar Dawson, urged the Northern District of California court not to dismiss his proposed class action lawsuit, in which he seeks wages and overtime pay for Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) players. As background, Dawson filed suit against the NCAA and Pac-12, alleging that the organizations violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California State labor law by underpaying athletes, not paying athletes minimum wages for all hours worked, not paying timely compensation, not…

Continue Reading....

O’Bannon Attorneys Attempt to Cash In with the Ninth Circuit

On February 16, 2017, attorneys for the student-athletes in the infamous O’Bannon case argued in front of the Ninth Circuit that they are entitled to over $42 million in attorney’s fees. The attorney’s obtained an injunction from the district court that the NCAA could not cap student-athlete aid packages at below the full cost of attendance, and that student-athletes could receive up to $5,000 per year in cash payments for use of their name, image, and likeness. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s…

Continue Reading....

Is the First College Sports PAC for the Purpose of Preventing Pay for Play?

The athletic directors at 129 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) colleges and universities announced recently that they are forming a political action committee, called LEAD1, to lobby Congress. Not only can PACs give limited donations to candidates and parties, they can also — as a result of Citizens United — spend as much as they want to support or defeat a candidate, party, or legislation. LEAD1 is the first college sports PAC. Conventional wisdom holds that the FBS athletic directors created LEAD1 to try to…

Continue Reading....

Former Track & Field Athletes Petition for En Banc Review in the Face of Latest Defeat in Student-Athlete Employment Fight

Two former NCAA track and field athletes are petitioning the Seventh Circuit to overrule itself, in one of the highest profile student-athlete lawsuits since the Ed O’Bannon litigation. Plaintiffs Gillian Berger and Taylor Hennig competed for the University of Pennsylvania, and argue that the hours spent training and competing for their school violated the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendants, which include the NCAA, won a motion to dismiss the case this past February. That order was upheld by…

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court Denies Review of O’Bannon Lawsuit

On October 3, 2016, the United States Supreme Court announced that it denied requests from both the NCAA and former student athletes to review the ruling in the infamous O’Bannon lawsuit. As a result, the Court will not attempt to tackle the issue of compensation for college student athletes, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision intact. In response, the chief legal counselor of the NCAA, Donald Remy, promptly released a statement reacting to the court’s decision. According to Remy, while they are obviously disappointed…

Continue Reading....

NCAA Unhappy with O’Bannon Support in Antitrust Suit

Following the Ninth Circuit decision that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) violated antitrust laws by denying students compensation for the use of their likeness, the NCAA petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal. In an unexpected turn of events in the O’Bannon v. NCAA lawsuit, the NCAA is arguing that O’Bannon is secretly in favor of the NCAA bid. In the Ninth Circuit ruling, the court in essence maintained that student-athletes should be compensated for the use of their name and likeness. However,…

Continue Reading....

O’Bannon Requests Supreme Court Kick First Amendment Question

While the O’Bannon appeal from the Ninth Circuit awaits a response from the Supreme Court, both sides have continued to strategically downplay the opposition’s arguments. Most recently, O’Bannon filed a July 1, 2016 brief advising the Supreme Court not to consider whether the Ninth Circuit should have barred the antitrust suit over compensation for athletes’ images and likenesses on First Amendment grounds. O’Bannon argues that the constitutional argument is not a central issue to the case. O’Bannon, on behalf of the former NCAA athletes, has…

Continue Reading....

Student-Athletes Challenging the NCAA’s ‘Grant-in-Aid’ Rules Seek to Continue Lawsuit By Distancing Themselves from O’Bannon

On May 31, 2016, student-athletes fighting NCAA bylaws which prevent compensation beyond the cost of attending college filed an opposition to the NCAA’s bid for judgement on the pleadings of their anti-trust claims. The key element of their opposition is that they are raising claims wholly different from the landmark O’Bannon v. NCAA case which had a momentous ruling in late 2015. By arguing that the issues are different from the O’Bannon case they stop the court from dismissing the case to prevent re-litigating…

Continue Reading....