Virginia Tech Not Fining Football Players UNC-Charlotte AD Talks C-USA Move New Akron AD Putting Football First Search Firm Fires Back At Minnesota UConn Hoops Won't Return To Bridgeport Ohio State Selling Alcohol At Football Games USC AD Addresses Sarkisian Behavior Georgia Tech Sees Football Season Tix Spike New Boise State AD Addresses Myriad Topics CFP's Hancock "Intrigued" By South Florida
SBD/February 27, 2014/Colleges
O'Bannon Documents Detail NCAA's Stance On Use Of Athletes Names, Likenesses
Published February 27, 2014
SPLITTING THE PROCEEDS: In Birmingham, Jon Solomon wrote the documents "provide at least one proposed model" for compensating college athletes and "shed insight into how pro leagues split revenue." O'Bannon economic expert Daniel Rascher estimated that a player on Alabama's '10 football team "would have received $47,330 from live broadcasting revenue that year and about $190,000 over four years," while a USC football player "would have received about $27,651 and roughly $110,000 over four years." Other unsealed documents "reflected how much money college athletes could receive from licensing under damages calculations from Rascher." A Michigan State men's basketball player in '10-11 "would have received about $275,675 that year from live broadcasting, compared to $191,512 from a UCLA player." The examples "came from a report by NCAA expert Daniel Rubinfeld in an attempt to show competitive balance issues for teams if players were allowed to be paid." Meanwhile, O'Bannon attorney Michael Hausfeld at a hearing last week "faced some difficult questions" from U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken "about whether the plaintiffs wanted college players to receive licensing payments during their college careers or have money put aside into a trust fund for after they leave." Hausfeld ultimately said that he "would be fine with an injunction allowing money to be put aside in a fund." Wilken said at the hearing, "I'm not issuing any injunctions until there's a finding of liability. And it probably wouldn't be a question of compromising, it would be a question of what had been shown to be a violation" (AL.com, 2/26).