NCAA attorney Samuel Waxman yesterday in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals argued that Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling in the Ed O'Bannon case last summer was "an overreach, inconsistent and misguided," according to Ben Strauss of the N.Y. TIMES. Front and center in the NCAA's complaint is a "31-year-old Supreme Court ruling, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, to which the NCAA argued Judge Wilken failed to pay proper deference." In that case, the court "stripped the NCAA of its right to control college football TV rights, but also issued a dictum that has become the bedrock of the NCAA's legal defense over the years." It read, “To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid." Waxman yesterday "contended that observation gave the NCAA the right to define amateurism and determine appropriate compensation." Noting that college sports "had changed drastically in the last three decades, Michael Hausfeld, the opposing counsel, said the case in no way 'established an irrefutable, impregnable determination that no rule encompassing the rubric of amateurism can be challenged.'” Each lawyer stood before the three judges "for about 35 minutes in the hearing, which was live-streamed." Waxman faced "significantly more questions" than Hausfeld, with the judges "particularly interested" in the recent passing of the cost-of-attendance measure. The NCAA has "asked for an expedited ruling, and could appeal again to the Supreme Court" (N.Y. TIMES, 3/18). The AP's Sudhin Thanawala noted O'Bannon yesterday was in court "to hear the arguments." The Ninth Circuit is "not under any set deadline to rule" (AP, 3/17).
