Intercollegiate athletics became a little less of a plantation system Friday when a United States District Court judge in Oakland, Calif., ruled that athletes in big-time sports programs could reap some of the financial benefits of participating in those programs.
This decision will prove revolutionary for college sports. The highly commercialized intercollegiate sports system that masquerades as an educational enterprise has been ordered to begin sharing its profits.
Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of Ed O’Bannon, the former U.C.L.A. basketball star. O’Bannon and 19 other plaintiffs challenged the N.C.A.A. on the grounds that the organization violated antitrust laws by not allowing student-athletes to profit from the use of their likenesses in broadcasts and video games.
By ruling against the N.C.A.A., Wilken tackled the hypocrisy at the root of the big-time college sports system.
Wilken’s injunction will allow players at high-revenue-generating programs — football players in the top 10 conferences and all Division I men’s basketball players — to receive a share of the profits from lucrative television contracts.
The ruling also acknowledges the blind spot that allows colleges to reap the financial rewards built on the talents of young athletes.
The Big Ten commissioner, Jim Delany, and other N.C.A.A. officials have argued that paying student-athletes will hurt college sports. The objection reflects the hypocrisy of a system that uses young labor but prevents those laborers from profiting from their work. (...)
If approved, the plan will allow 64 colleges in the so-called Big 5 conferences, and Notre Dame, to set new ground rules — for example, the universities could enhance the value of scholarships — that could make these programs more appealing to prospective athletes.
Yet representatives of these power conferences complain about allowing athletes a share of the revenue. They want it both ways: The rich universities want to break from the pack and set up their own rules, but they object to sharing the revenue with the athletes who generate the wealth.
Wilken’s ruling put a price on the cost of doing business.

Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of Ed O’Bannon, the former U.C.L.A. basketball star. O’Bannon and 19 other plaintiffs challenged the N.C.A.A. on the grounds that the organization violated antitrust laws by not allowing student-athletes to profit from the use of their likenesses in broadcasts and video games.
By ruling against the N.C.A.A., Wilken tackled the hypocrisy at the root of the big-time college sports system.
Wilken’s injunction will allow players at high-revenue-generating programs — football players in the top 10 conferences and all Division I men’s basketball players — to receive a share of the profits from lucrative television contracts.
The ruling also acknowledges the blind spot that allows colleges to reap the financial rewards built on the talents of young athletes.
The Big Ten commissioner, Jim Delany, and other N.C.A.A. officials have argued that paying student-athletes will hurt college sports. The objection reflects the hypocrisy of a system that uses young labor but prevents those laborers from profiting from their work. (...)
If approved, the plan will allow 64 colleges in the so-called Big 5 conferences, and Notre Dame, to set new ground rules — for example, the universities could enhance the value of scholarships — that could make these programs more appealing to prospective athletes.
Yet representatives of these power conferences complain about allowing athletes a share of the revenue. They want it both ways: The rich universities want to break from the pack and set up their own rules, but they object to sharing the revenue with the athletes who generate the wealth.
Wilken’s ruling put a price on the cost of doing business.
by William C. Rhoden, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Jae C. Hong/Associated Press