There was another court decision Wednesday morning in the ongoing legal battle about whether or not NCAA athletes should be better compensated.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the NCAA’s ban on compensating student-athletes violates federal antitrust law, but rejected an order forcing the NCAA to let schools pay athletes a minimum of $5,000 per year, according to a report by law360.com.
The Ninth Circuit upheld a 2014 ruling from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken that the NCAA’s amateurism rules were anti-competitive. But her ruling that college athletes could receive “name, image, likeness” licensing payments from schools, which would be held in a trust until graduation or eligibility expired, was struck down.
The ruling also stipulated that the NCAA could set a cap on this compensation at no lower than $5,000 a year. Instead, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an option for the NCAA would be to let schools give players scholarships that equaled the full cost of attendance.
The Power 5 conferences passed a proposal in January to include cost of attendance compensation in athletic scholarships.
This appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit after the NCAA appealed a decision by a California district judge in 2014 that said the NCAA’s rules against compensating students for the use of their names and likenesses violate antitrust laws. The California judge handed down an injunction barring the NCAA from imposing them, according to the law360 report.
The beginning of this case stems from a 2009 lawsuit against the NCAA, Electronic Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Co. by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon Jr. and Sam Keller over the use of their likenesses in video games.
Electronic Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing paid settlements in the cases in 2013, while the NCAA reached a settlement agreement this past June.
BREAKING: NCAA student-athlete pay ban struck down by 9th Circuit. http://t.co/6lwNfNtgYl
— Law360 (@Law360) September 30, 2015