<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"\"This theory is implausible.\" \nThose were just a few of the words that federal judge Claudia Wilken wrote in a 99-page ruling on Friday, demolishing the National Collegiate Athletic Association's long-held reasoning for prohibiting athletes from profiting from college sports.\nWilken's ruling, which may open the doors for college football and basketball players to begin earning significant revenue from the sale of their \"names, images and likenesses,\" could fundamentally change the landscape of college sports forever. \nSee also: College Football Players Can Unionize, Landmark Labor Ruling Says\nThe ruling put in place an injunction against the NCAA, barring it from placing \"overly restrictive restraints\" on current and former student-athletes attempting to profit from their own \"names, images, and likenesses in video games, live game telecasts and other footage.\"\nFor years, the NCAA maintained that the revenue it draws from its top-tier sports programs, such as Division I football and basketball, helps fund other, less profitable sports. The associated added that changing the current system might negatively impact the universities' programs. \nThe NCAA also argued that it has the sole First Amendment right to profit from the television broadcasts, video games and jerseys related to its athletic programs. While college athletes face stiff penalties for accepting any monies beyond their university scholarships, however, college coaches are paid millions of dollars. \nThis seeming imbalance was eventually challenged in a class-action antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon against the NCAA in 2009. \n\nAfter several years of legal wrangling, Wilken's Friday ruling laid out a number of points refuting the NCAA's logic.\n\"The popularity of college sports would not suffer if current and future student-athletes were given the opportunity to receive compensation from their schools after they leave college,\" she wrote. \"The Court therefore finds that consumer demand for the NCAA\u2019s products would not change if schools were allowed to offer and student-athletes on FBS football and Division I basketball teams were allowed, after leaving college, to receive limited and equal shares of licensing revenue generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses during college.\"\nWilken's ruling directly challenges the rules laid down by the NCAA back in 1956, which governed the compensation of college athletes. Those rules limited student payments to scholarships, and prohibited profits beyond \"commonly accepted educational expenses.\" \nIn fact, the NCAA's own former executive director from 1951 to 1988, Walter Byers, reportedly blasted the current system in his 1997 memoir as a, \"neo-plantation belief that the enormous proceeds from college games belong to the overseers (administrators) and supervisors (coaches).\"\nIn recent years, athletes and sports analysts alike have begun to openly criticize the rules as outdated and unfair, particularly now that college sports have become a billion-dollar industry:\n\nI sympathize w/anyone that has student loans to pay &amp; believe that collegiate athletes deserve to be paid a stipend #NCAA\n\u2014 Jalen Rose (@JalenRose) August 31, 2012\n\n\nA multi-billion dollar tax-free corporation that does not have to pay its talent #NCAA\n\u2014 Jalen Rose (@JalenRose) September 25, 2011\n\nAccording to the NCAA's own figures, 81% of the association's revenue comes from its media rights \u2014 that is, the selling of the images of college athletes competing. The enormity of the NCAA's profits was made even more apparent in 2010 when it signed a $10.8 billion television deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting. \nIn 2012, the Collegiate Licensing Company estimated that the retail market for college-licensed merchandise at the time was around $4.62 billion. However, the viability of that market was called into question last year after ESPN's Jay Bilas railed against the NCAA for profiting off player jerseys, while tightly restricting their activities:\n\nNCAA forced Shabazz Muhammad to sit out early games, but still making money off of him on http://t.co/qpH4tNnIpH. pic.twitter.com/3U0KFbmngg\n\u2014 Jay Bilas (@JayBilas) August 6, 2013\n\nIn the aftermath of Bilas' tweetstorm, the NCAA backed off of selling jerseys with the names of individual players \u2014 a move some believe was prompted in part by the pressure of the then-unresolved O'Bannon lawsuit. \nWilken's ruling may bring relief to current and former college athletes \u2014 many of whom don't go on to secure multimillion-dollar pro-sports contracts, and have felt cheated out of participating in the profits reaped by the universities and the NCAA. \nWhile some may still think the NCAA is within its rights to restrict player profit, in 2011, an NCAA survey revealed that Division I athletes in baseball, basketball and football logged about 40 hours of athletics a week \u2014 roughly the same amount of time as a full-time job.  \nIn response to the ruling, the NCAA issued the following statement: \u201CWe disagree with the Court's decision that NCAA rules violate antitrust laws,\" Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, said in a statement posted on the association's website Friday. \"We note that the Court's decision sets limits on compensation, but are reviewing the full decision, and will provide further comment later. As evidenced by yesterday\u2019s Board of Directors action, the NCAA is committed to fully supporting student-athletes.\"\nHave something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.\n      window._msla=window.loadScriptAsync||function(src,id){if(document.getElementById(id))return;var js=document.createElement('script');js.id=id;js.src=src;document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0].parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);};\n_msla(\"//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js\",\"twitter_jssdk\");"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2014/08/09/ncaa-athletes-profit/>