When he took the stand in the O’Bannon trial, Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky warned if the plaintiffs win, the world of college sports would become a “horrible place.” If student-athletes are allowed to sell the rights to their names, images, and likeness, a “corrupting influence of money” would overpower and materialize college sports.
Banowsky further expressed his worries when he described “exploitative” boosters who would flock to manipulate these 18 or 19-year olds and their families. In doing so, he mentioned Nevin Shapiro, a wealthy booster who worked closely with the University of Miami’s Hurricanes athletes. Shapiro provided Miami players various benefits, including cash and prostitutes.
Although Banowsky painted a dire picture, it might not be that dramatic because it is expected that most of student-athletes in Division I men’s basketball and football teams would collectively negotiate a deal to sell their names, images, and likeness through a trade association. However, it is possible that establishing a trade association would not eliminate Banowsky’s concerns because an individual player could still strike a deal with a booster.
Banowsky also highlighted if student-athletes get compensated for their names, images, and likeness, “teams with the best players would win more consistently than they do now” and disturb competitive balance among the NCAA teams. While the plaintiffs’ attorney simply discredited his testimony as groundless, previously O’Bannon’s economic expert Daniel Rascher on June 13 had testified that the data show the wealthiest schools already generally attract the best players.
The NCAA is expected to appeal if it loses. One legal expert says that since the NCAA must base its appeal on Judge Wilken’s specific mistakes, it would probably use the direct examination of Banowsky to show how Judge Wilken prevented the NCAA counsel from providing effective defense. During the direct examination, an attorney for the NCAA asked Banowsky about the contracts with TV broadcasting companies. The plan was to show that no discussion about using student-athletes’ names, images, and likeness was there during negotiation because they are not separate from the broadcasting rights. However, the plaintiffs objected immediately that the topic was outside the scope of Banowsky’s testimony which Judge Wilken previously established, and she agreed. The NCAA attorneys strongly protested with no success.
O’Bannon v. NCAA: Do schools make or lose money on sports?
C-USA Commissioner paints bleak picture on O’Bannon case Day 11
NCAA compares Tonya Harding to Johnny Manziel at Ed O’Bannon trial