Return to Current Litigation

Alston v. NCAA

Permanent link to this article: https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/current-litigation/alston-v-ncaa/

Mark Emmert's NCAA Kool-Aid

Alston Appeal Is Perfect Representation of Style Over Substance

The same appeals court that gutted Federal District Judge Claudia Wilken’s ruling in O’Bannon v. NCAA has an opportunity to make amends for that failure. Given the merits of the case, the language of Wilken’s ruling and the arguments of several amicus briefs that have been filed on both sides, it seems the Ninth’s decision is style or substance.

Hollow Victory in Alston Ruling

Alston Ruling Brings a Hollow Victory for College Athletes

Late Friday evening, Judge Claudia Wilken issued a long-awaited ruling in the Alston anti-trust amateurism case, officially known as In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation in the Northern District of California.

While judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs, the victory rings hollow.  Note the limiting nature of her opinion, despite for a second time, the first being O’Bannon, she found the NCAA’s practices to be a violation of antitrust law

Mark Emmert's delusion

The NCAA’s Latest Filing In Alston Continues Its Nonsensical Campaign

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ call for both sides in Alston v. NCAA to submit briefs on how California’s pending college athletes publicity rights law affects the case has been fulfilled. There are no surprises, especially if you’re familiar with the NCAA’s arguments for why the federal government should continue to ignore its illegal cartel.

Judge Claudia Wilken

Advocacy for Fairness in Sports writes letter to Judge Wilken regarding upcoming NCAA “amateurism” trial

Dear Judge Wilken,
Next month you will no doubt hear eloquent and passionate arguments from Jeffrey Kessler as he presents antitrust claims against the NCAA. You will also hear capable counsel for the defense refuting those claims and insisting that amateurism must be protected. Having read the briefs, I feel there are some compelling arguments that have been omitted, and as such, I feel the need to bring them to the Court’s attention after a brief recap of issues that have been previously and wrongly addressed.