Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden  
Forum

Wunschforum Formular | Gästebuch | Shoutbox

Sie können sich hier anmelden
Dieses Thema hat 0 Antworten
und wurde 38 mal aufgerufen
 Aktuelle Forum News
jcy123 Offline

Unübertreffbarer Weltmeister in alles Disziplinen

Beiträge: 7.429

05.06.2019 08:57
nt in response to the Supreme Courts ruling on Monday, Remy said the NCAA membership agreements are not violations of the antitr Antworten

The Supreme Courts surprising decision Monday to leave in place court rulings that found the NCAAs amateurism rules for college basketball and football players violated federal antitrust law raises questions about paying college athletes and the future of college sports.Q: In essence, the Supreme Court was not interested in answering the question of whether college athletes can be paid, so what happens now?A: The rule that now governs college sports is the one issued in a prior ruling in the OBannon vs. NCAA case. In that 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the court ruled that NCAA schools would be permitted to pay a student-athletes entire cost of attendance but would be prohibited from paying anything beyond that.In the lawsuit they filed six years ago against the NCAA, OBannon and his legal team sought a new rule that would permit schools to pay athletes for use of their names, images and likenesses. They succeeded in a 2014 trial in Oakland, California, persuading a federal judge to authorize payments of $5,000 per player per season. But the NCAA appealed and won a reversal of the $5,000 provision. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, OBannons lawyers hoped to reinstate the $5,000 payments or allow even greater payments. It did not happen, and the OBannon quest is over.Q: So -- who is the clear winner here?A:?There is no doubt that the OBannon outcome is a triumph for the NCAA and its top lawyer, Donald Remy. Facing the possibility of unlimited payments to athletes, the NCAA was on the precipice of a radical change when this saga began. It is certain that the NCAA and Remy would have agreed to paying the cost of attendance as a settlement of this case. Even as the case traveled through the court system, the leaders of the five power conferences were deciding voluntarily to pay the cost of attendance for players.That stated, the result of this case is not a total triumph for the NCAA. The legal precedent set in the OBannon appellate decision includes a ruling that the NCAA is a cartel that is subject to the nations antitrust laws, a ruling that opens the organization to attacks from other athletes.In his statement in response to the Supreme Courts ruling on Monday, Remy said the NCAA membership agreements are not violations of the antitrust law and that the organization would continue to advance that legal position in other litigation. The NCAA hoped in its appeal to the Supreme Court to obtain a decision that it was immune to antitrust scrutiny.Q: Is there any chance that athletes will be paid for playing in the multibillion-dollar business that is college sports?A:?Yes, there remains a chance. The next big case facing the NCAA is known as the Kessler Case. It is an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA filed by estimable sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler.Now pending in federal court in Oakland, Kessler and his clients seek an open market for college athletes in which schools would compete for them. To succeed in this case, Kessler and his team must differentiate their case from OBannons and overcome the appellate court ruling in that OBannon case. OBannon sought compensation for use of players names, images and likenesses. Kessler seeks a much broader payment that covers practices, games and broadcasts.Kesslers task will be difficult. The majority judges in OBannon ruled that the difference between offering student athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap. Kessler must somehow succeed in making the quantum leap from cost of attendance to pay for play.Q: Is the Supreme Courts refusal to consider the OBannon case a surprise?A: Yes. The 2-1 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals presented highly significant issues in American antitrust laws. The Supreme Court had previously transformed the televising of college sports in a decision in 1984. It was time to take another look, especially because college sports have become a major element of the nations economy and culture.The Supreme Court briefs filed by attorney Jonathan Massey on behalf of OBannon were masterly presentations of issues that could easily have captured the attention of the high court. And there was precedent for the court intervening in the sports industry: When the NFL and a paraphernalia manufacturer asked the high court to consider a dispute, the court accepted the case and wrote a historic decision in 2010.To succeed in persuading the Supreme Court to consider their case, OBannon and the NCAA needed four votes from the eight justices now on the court. Were there any votes to accept the case? We will never know. The court denied the appeal without a word of comment.Q: This kind of complex and lengthy litigation must be expensive. Who is paying for it?A: The total bill, including the appeals to the Supreme Court, will approach $100 million, all of it paid by the NCAA -- at least as it stands now.?The OBannon trial in Oakland encompassed the testimony of 23 witnesses, had 287 exhibits, produced 3,395 pages of transcript and led to a written decision of 99 pages. Many of the witnesses were expensive experts. One of them, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, charged the NCAA a fee of $2,100 per hour.Because of the ruling that the NCAA is a cartel that is violating antitrust laws, the NCAA must cover all legal fees. The NCAA is appealing the fee ruling, though, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and Remy believes it will agree with us and potentially direct a substantial reduction or elimination of the fee request. Cheap Jordan Shoes Free Shipping . Paul Pierce couldnt believe he missed at the end. Young scored a season-high 26 points to spark a huge effort from the leagues most productive bench, and Los Angeles beat the Brooklyn Nets 99-94 on Wednesday night after blowing a 27-point lead. Discount Air Jordan 12 . The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the Lions have not announced the hiring, which was first reported by ESPN. Lombardi, the grandson of former Green Bay Hall of Fame coach Vince Lombardi, has been an offensive assistant on Sean Paytons New Orleans staff since 2007. http://www.wholesalejordan12.com/discount-jordan-4-wholesale/cheap-jordan-4-motorsport-china.html . -- Most satisfying to Russ Smith about No. Cheap Jordan 12 From China . The phone hearing is scheduled for 4:30pm et/1:30pm pt. Winchester, who was not penalized for the hit, appeared to make contact with Kellys head early in the first period of Thursdays game in Boston. Cheap Jordan 12 Mens . Scott won the Australian PGA last week in his first event in Australia since winning the U.S. Masters in April. American Matt Kuchar, ahead by two strokes with four to play and even with Scott with one to go, double-bogeyed the 18th after taking two shots to get out of a bunker. SAN JOSE, California -- The Latest on reaction to 49ers Colin Kaepernicks recent decision to not stand during the national anthem in protest of police killings of unarmed black men (all times local):4:15 p.m.The police chief in Santa Clara, home to Levis Stadium, says he will urge the leadership of the officers union to put citizens safety first after its members said they may boycott policing 49ers games if quarterback Colin Kaepernick is not disciplined.Santa Clara Police Chief Michael Sellers said in a statement Saturday that he will work with the officers association and the 49ers to find a solution.Sellers says that while he and many in the law enforcement community have been saddened and angered by Kaepernicks words and actions, he will ensure the police department continues to provide a safe environment at Levis Stadium.Kaepernick has refused to stand up during the playing of the national anthem before recent games as a way of pprotesting police killings of unarmed black men.dddddddddddd---8:33 a.m.The union for police officers who work San Francisco home games says its members may boycott policing the stadium if the 49ers dont discipline Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand during the national anthem and for his statements about law enforcement.A letter from the Santa Clara Police Officers Association sent to the 49ers was obtained Friday by KNTV-TV, the NBC affiliate in San Jose.It says that Kaepernicks protest has threatened our harmonious working relationship with the 49ers. About 70 officers from the Santa Clara Police Department patrol Levis Stadium when the 49ers play there.It also criticized what it called anti-police statements made by Kaepernick, calling them insulting, inaccurate and completely unsupported by any facts. ' ' '

 Sprung  


Xobor Erstelle ein eigenes Forum mit Xobor
Datenschutz