U

n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A


EDWARD O’ BANNON, et al .

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

NATI ONAL COLLEGI ATE ATHLETI C
ASSOCI ATI ON; ELECTRONI C ARTS
I NC. ; and COLLEGI ATE LI CENSI NG
COMPANY,


Def endant s.
________________________________/
No. C 09- 3329 CW

FI NDI NGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSI ONS OF
LAW

I NTRODUCTI ON
Compet i t i on t akes many f or ms. Al t hough t hi s case r ai ses
quest i ons about at hl et i c compet i t i on on t he f oot bal l f i el d and t he
basket bal l cour t , i t i s pr i nci pal l y about t he r ul es gover ni ng
compet i t i on i n a di f f er ent ar ena - - namel y, t he mar ket pl ace.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e a gr oup of cur r ent and f or mer col l ege st udent -
at hl et es. They br ought t hi s ant i t r ust cl ass act i on agai nst t he
Nat i onal Col l egi at e At hl et i c Associ at i on ( NCAA) i n 2009 t o
chal l enge t he associ at i on’ s r ul es r est r i ct i ng compensat i on f or
el i t e men’ s f oot bal l and basket bal l pl ayer s. I n par t i cul ar ,
Pl ai nt i f f s seek t o chal l enge t he set of r ul es t hat bar st udent -
at hl et es f r omr ecei vi ng a shar e of t he r evenue t hat t he NCAA and
i t s member school s ear n f r omt he sal e of l i censes t o use t he
st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n vi deogames,
l i ve game t el ecast s, and ot her f oot age. Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat
t hese r ul es vi ol at e t he Sher man Ant i t r ust Act . The NCAA deni es
t hi s char ge and asser t s t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page1 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
compensat i on ar e necessar y t o uphol d i t s educat i onal mi ssi on and
t o pr ot ect t he popul ar i t y of col l egi at e spor t s.
A non- j ur y t r i al on Pl ai nt i f f s’ cl ai ms was hel d bet ween J une
9, 2014 and J une 27, 2014. Af t er consi der i ng al l of t he
t est i mony, document ar y evi dence, and ar gument s of counsel
pr esent ed dur i ng and af t er t r i al , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he
chal l enged NCAA r ul es unr easonabl y r est r ai n t r ade i n t he mar ket
f or cer t ai n educat i onal and at hl et i c oppor t uni t i es of f er ed by NCAA
Di vi si on I school s. The pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i ons t hat t he
NCAA of f er s do not j ust i f y t hi s r est r ai nt and coul d be achi eved
t hr ough l ess r est r i ct i ve means. The Cour t makes t he f ol l owi ng
f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons of l aw, and wi l l ent er as a
r emedy a per manent i nj unct i on pr ohi bi t i ng cer t ai n over l y
r est r i ct i ve r est r ai nt s.
FI NDI NGS OF FACT
I . Backgr ound
A. The NCAA
The NCAA was f ounded i n 1905 by t he pr esi dent s of si xt y- t wo
col l eges and uni ver si t i es i n or der t o cr eat e a uni f or mset of
r ul es t o r egul at e i nt er col l egi at e f oot bal l . Docket No. 189, St i p.
Undi sput ed Fact s, at ¶ 6. Today, t he associ at i on has r oughl y
el even hundr ed member school s and r egul at es i nt er col l egi at e
at hl et i c compet i t i ons i n r oughl y t wo dozen spor t s. Accor di ng t o
i t s cur r ent const i t ut i on, t he associ at i on seeks t o “i ni t i at e,
st i mul at e and i mpr ove i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs pr ogr ams f or
st udent - at hl et es and t o pr omot e and devel op educat i onal
l eader shi p, physi cal f i t ness, at hl et i cs excel l ence and at hl et i cs
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page2 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
par t i ci pat i on as a r ecr eat i onal pur sui t . ” Ex. 2340, 2013- 14 NCAA
Di vi si on I Manual , at 15.
1

To achi eve t hese goal s, t he NCAA i ssues and enf or ces r ul es
gover ni ng at hl et i c compet i t i ons among i t s member school s. I d. at
4. These r ul es ar e out l i ned i n t he associ at i on’ s const i t ut i on and
byl aws and cover a br oad r ange of subj ect s. Among ot her t hi ngs,
t he r ul es est abl i sh academi c el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s f or st udent -
at hl et es, set f or t h gui del i nes and r est r i ct i ons f or r ecr ui t i ng
hi gh school at hl et es, and i mpose l i mi t s on t he number and si ze of
at hl et i c schol ar shi ps t hat each school may pr ovi de. I d. at 3- 5.
Si nce 1973, t he NCAA’ s member school s have been or gani zed
i nt o t hr ee di vi si ons - - Di vi si ons I , I I , and I I I - - based on t he
number and qual i t y of oppor t uni t i es t hat t hey pr ovi de t o
par t i ci pat e i n i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs. St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s
¶ 27. Di vi si on I school s pr ovi de t he gr eat est number and hi ghest
qual i t y of oppor t uni t i es t o par t i ci pat e i n i nt er col l egi at e
at hl et i cs because t hey sponsor mor e spor t s t eams and pr ovi de mor e
f i nanci al ai d t o st udent - at hl et es t han school s i n Di vi si ons I I and
I I I .
2
To qual i f y f or member shi p i n Di vi si on I , a school must
sponsor a mi ni mumof f our t een var si t y spor t s t eams, i ncl udi ng
f oot bal l , and di st r i but e a basel i ne amount of f i nanci al ai d t o i t s
st udent - at hl et es. Tr i al Tr . 2043: 13- : 25 ( Del any) ; Ex. 2340 at
365, 367. Roughl y t hr ee- hundr ed and f i f t y of t he NCAA’ s el even

1
Al l exhi bi t ci t at i ons i n t hi s or der ar e t o t he page number s
pr ovi ded by t he par t i es at t r i al , whi ch do not necessar i l y cor r espond t o
t he page number s cr eat ed by t he or i gi nal aut hor of t he exhi bi t .
2
The NCAA’ s byl aws def i ne f i nanci al ai d t o mean “f unds pr ovi ded t o
st udent - at hl et es f r omvar i ous sour ces t o pay or assi st i n payi ng t hei r
cost of educat i on at t he i nst i t ut i on. ” Ex. 2340 at 206. The Cour t
adopt s t hi s def i ni t i on f or t he pur poses of t hi s or der .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page3 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hundr ed school s cur r ent l y compet e i n Di vi si on I . Tr i al Tr .
1743: 23 ( Emmer t ) .
Di vi si on I i t sel f f ur t her i s di vi ded, f or t he pur poses of
f oot bal l compet i t i on, i nt o t wo subdi vi si ons: t he Foot bal l Bowl
Subdi vi si on ( FBS) and t he Foot bal l Champi onshi p Subdi vi si on
( FCS) .
3
Tr i al Tr . 2144: 9- : 11 ( Pet r ) ; Ex. 2340 at 364- 67. FBS
school s ar e al l owed t o of f er up t o ei ght y- f i ve f ul l schol ar shi ps
t o member s of t hei r f oot bal l t eams. I n cont r ast , FCS school s ar e
per mi t t ed t o of f er onl y a smal l er number of f ul l schol ar shi ps t o
member s of t hei r t eams. St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶ 28. Because FBS
school s ar e abl e t o of f er mor e f oot bal l schol ar shi ps t han FCS
school s, t he l evel of f oot bal l compet i t i on wi t hi n FBS i s gener al l y
hi gher t han wi t hi n FCS. Cur r ent l y, about one hundr ed and t went y
school s compet e i n FBS. I d. ¶ 45.
I n addi t i on t o t he t wo f oot bal l subdi vi si ons, Di vi si on I
school s ar e al so or gani zed i nt o a number of conf er ences, whi ch
essent i al l y f unct i on as smal l er l eagues wi t hi n t he NCAA. The
conf er ences - - most of whi ch cont ai n bet ween ei ght and f i f t een
school s - - t ypi cal l y have t hei r own member shi p r equi r ement s. Most
conf er ences al so or gani ze conf er ence- speci f i c games and event s
f eat ur i ng t hei r member school s, i ncl udi ng r egul ar season f oot bal l
games, r egul ar season basket bal l games, and post - season basket bal l
t our nament s. Al t hough t he conf er ences ar e consi der ed member s of
t he NCAA and must compl y wi t h i t s const i t ut i on and byl aws, t hey
oper at e i ndependent l y f or t he most par t and have t he aut hor i t y t o

3
Pr i or t o 2006, FBS was known as Di vi si on I - A and FCS was known as
Di vi si on I - AA. For t he pur poses of si mpl i ci t y, t hi s or der uses “FBS”
and “FCS” t o r ef er t o t hese subdi vi si ons even when di scussi ng st udent -
at hl et es who pl ayed Di vi si on I f oot bal l bef or e 2006.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page4 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gener at e t hei r own r evenue and set t hei r own r ul es, pr ovi ded t hose
r ul es ar e consi st ent wi t h NCAA pol i cy. Ex. 2340 at 22.
The r ul es gover ni ng par t i ci pat i on and compet i t i on i n Di vi si on
I ar e enact ed by an ei ght een- member body known as t he Di vi si on I
Boar d of Di r ect or s, whi ch t ypi cal l y r ecei ves pr oposal s f r omt he
di vi si on’ s member school s and conf er ences. Tr i al Tr . 1744: 16-
1745: 2 ( Emmer t ) ; Ex. 2340 at 35. The Boar d i s made up of
uni ver si t y pr esi dent s and chancel l or s f r omei ght een di f f er ent
col l eges or uni ver si t i es. Ex. 2340 at 35.
A school or conf er ence t hat seeks t o pr opose a new r ul e or
r ul e change t ypi cal l y does so by submi t t i ng t he pr oposal t o a
desi gnat ed commi t t ee or t ask f or ce appoi nt ed by t he Boar d. Tr i al
Tr . 1745: 20- 1746: 15. That commi t t ee or t ask f or ce t hen consi der s
t he pr oposal and, i f i t appr oves, may f or war d t he pr oposal t o a
body known as t he Di vi si on I Legi sl at i ve Counci l , whi ch i s made up
of at hl et i cs admi ni st r at or s f r omschool s i n each of t he t hi r t y- t wo
Di vi si on I conf er ences. I d. ; Ex. 2340 at 37. The Legi sl at i ve
Counci l may t hen f or war d t he pr oposal t o t he Boar d of Di r ect or s,
whi ch has t he ul t i mat e aut hor i t y t o appr ove t he pr oposal by a
maj or i t y vot e. Tr i al Tr . 1745: 20- 1746: 15. Act i ons by t he Boar d
may onl y be r epeal ed t hr ough an over r i de pr ocess t hat i nvol ves a
vot e of si xt y- t wo per cent of t he NCAA’ s member i nst i t ut i ons. I d.
1747: 6- : 20. The NCAA’ s cur r ent pr esi dent , Dr . Mar k Emmer t , does
not have any vot i ng power i n t hi s pr ocess. I d. 1746: 19- : 24.
B. El ect r oni c Ar t s I nc. & Col l egi at e Li censi ng Company
El ect r oni c Ar t s I nc. ( EA) i s a cor por at i on whi ch devel ops and
manuf act ur es vi deogames. St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶ 35. I t cr eat ed
and sol d an annual NCAA- br anded col l ege f oot bal l vi deogame ever y
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page5 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
year bet ween 1997 and 2013. I d. ¶ 39. I t al so cr eat ed and sol d
an annual NCAA- br anded col l ege basket bal l game ever y year bet ween
1998 and 2010. I d. ¶ 40. I n or der t o cr eat e t hese games, i t
ent er ed i nt o l i censi ng agr eement s wi t h t he NCAA and i t s member
school s and pai d t hemf or per mi ssi on t o use t hei r i nt el l ect ual
pr oper t y, i ncl udi ng t hei r mar ks, i n t he vi deogames. I d. ¶¶ 37- 38;
Exs. 1125, 1126. Col l egi at e Li censi ng Company ( CLC) i s a Geor gi a
cor por at i on t hat l i censes t r ademar ks of t he NCAA and sever al of
i t s member school s and conf er ences. St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶¶ 32-
34. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s or i gi nal l y br ought cl ai ms agai nst bot h EA
and CLC i n t hi s act i on, t hey subsequent l y agr eed t o set t l e t hose
cl ai ms.
C. Pl ai nt i f f s
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e t went y cur r ent and f or mer st udent - at hl et es,
al l of whompl ay or pl ayed f or an FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I men’ s
basket bal l t eambet ween 1956 and t he pr esent . Some, but not al l ,
Pl ai nt i f f s went on t o pl ay pr of essi onal spor t s af t er t hey l ef t
col l ege. They r epr esent t he f ol l owi ng cl ass, whi ch t hi s Cour t
cer t i f i ed under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 23( b) ( 2) i n
November 2013:

Al l cur r ent and f or mer st udent - at hl et es
r esi di ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es who compet e on,
or compet ed on, an NCAA Di vi si on I ( f or mer l y
known as “Uni ver si t y Di vi si on” bef or e 1973)
col l ege or uni ver si t y men’ s basket bal l t eamor
on an NCAA Foot bal l Bowl Subdi vi si on ( f or mer l y
known as Di vi si on I - A unt i l 2006) men’ s
f oot bal l t eamand whose i mages, l i kenesses
and/ or names may be, or have been, i ncl uded or
coul d have been i ncl uded ( by vi r t ue of t hei r
appear ance i n a t eamr ost er ) i n game f oot age
or i n vi deogames l i censed or sol d by
Def endant s, t hei r co- conspi r at or s, or t hei r
l i censees.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page6 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 09- 1967, Docket No. 1025, Apr i l 11, 2014 Or der , at 47- 48
( amendi ng def i ni t i on of pr evi ousl y cer t i f i ed cl ass) .
I I . The Rel evant Mar ket s
As expl ai ned i n pr evi ous or der s, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he
NCAA has r est r ai ned t r ade i n t wo r el at ed nat i onal mar ket s, whi ch
t hey r ef er t o as t he “col l ege educat i on mar ket ” and t he “gr oup
l i censi ng mar ket . ” Al t hough t hese al l eged mar ket s i nvol ve many of
t he same par t i ci pant s, each mar ket ul t i mat el y i nvol ves a di f f er ent
set of buyer s, sel l er s, and pr oduct s. Accor di ngl y, t hi s or der
addr esses each mar ket separ at el y.
A. Col l ege Educat i on Mar ket
The evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , i ncl udi ng t est i mony f r om
bot h exper t s and l ay wi t nesses, est abl i shes t hat FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s compet e t o r ecr ui t t he best hi gh
school f oot bal l and basket bal l pl ayer s. Tr i al Tr . 9: 1- : 7
( O’ Bannon) ; 114: 21- 117: 17 ( Nol l ) ; 831: 8- : 11 ( Rascher ) ; 1759: 21- : 22
( Emmer t ) ; Ex. 2530. Speci f i cal l y, t hese school s compet e t o sel l
uni que bundl es of goods and ser vi ces t o el i t e f oot bal l and
basket bal l r ecr ui t s. The bundl es i ncl ude schol ar shi ps t o cover
t he cost of t ui t i on, f ees, r oomand boar d, books, cer t ai n school
suppl i es, t ut or i ng, and academi c suppor t ser vi ces. Tr i al Tr .
40: 2- : 20 ( O’ Bannon) ; 582: 6- : 18 ( Pr ot hr o) ; 1741: 10- : 20 ( Emmer t ) ;
Ex. 2340 at 207. They al so i ncl ude access t o hi gh- qual i t y
coachi ng, medi cal t r eat ment , st at e- of - t he- ar t at hl et i c f aci l i t i es,
and oppor t uni t i es t o compet e at t he hi ghest l evel of col l ege
spor t s, of t en i n f r ont of l ar ge cr owds and t el evi si on audi ences.
Tr i al Tr . 13: 4- : 12 ( O’ Bannon) ; 556: 8- 558: 2 ( Pr ot hr o) ; 1157: 20-
1158: 7 ( St aur owsky) ; 1721: 3- 1722: 19 ( Emmer t ) . I n exchange f or
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page7 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t hese uni que bundl es of goods and ser vi ces, f oot bal l and
basket bal l r ecr ui t s must pr ovi de t hei r school s wi t h t hei r at hl et i c
ser vi ces and acqui esce i n t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and
l i kenesses f or commer ci al and pr omot i onal pur poses. I d. 109: 5-
110: 12 ( Nol l ) . They al so i mpl i ci t l y agr ee t o pay any cost s of
at t endi ng col l ege and par t i ci pat i ng i n i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs
t hat ar e not cover ed by t hei r schol ar shi ps. See Ex. 2340 at 207.
The evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al demonst r at es t hat FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s ar e t he onl y suppl i er s
of t he uni que bundl es of goods and ser vi ces descr i bed above.
Recr ui t s who ar e ski l l ed enough t o pl ay FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I
basket bal l do not t ypi cal l y pur sue ot her opt i ons f or cont i nui ng
t hei r educat i on and at hl et i c car eer s beyond hi gh school .
Pl ai nt i f f s’ economi c exper t , Dr . Roger Nol l , exami ned t he r at es at
whi ch el i t e f oot bal l and basket bal l r ecr ui t s accept at hl et i c
schol ar shi ps t o pl ay FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l . He
obser ved t hat , bet ween 2007 and 2011, mor e t han ni net y- ei ght
per cent of f oot bal l r ecr ui t s cl assi f i ed as f our - or f i ve- st ar
r ecr ui t s ( t he t wo hi ghest r at i ngs avai l abl e) by Ri val s. com
accept ed of f er s t o pl ay FBS f oot bal l . Tr i al Tr . 113: 2- 114: 13; Ex.
2529. None of t he f i ve- st ar r ecr ui t s and onl y 0. 2%of f our - st ar
r ecr ui t s chose t o pl ay f oot bal l at an FCS school and none chose t o
pl ay at a Di vi si on I I or I I I school dur i ng t hat per i od. Ex. 2529.
Among t hr ee- st ar r ecr ui t s, ni net y- t wo per cent of t hose of f er ed a
schol ar shi p f r oman FBS school accept ed one. I d. Less t han f our
per cent of al l t hr ee- st ar r ecr ui t s accept ed an of f er t o pl ay
f oot bal l at a non- FBS school . I d.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page8 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thi s pat t er n i s even mor e st ar k f or basket bal l r ecr ui t s.
Bet ween 2007 and 2011, no f our - or f i ve- st ar basket bal l r ecr ui t s
and l ess t han one per cent of al l t wo- and t hr ee- st ar r ecr ui t s
accept ed of f er s t o pl ay f or a non- Di vi si on I school . I d. Even
among zer o- st ar r ecr ui t s, onl y one per cent accept ed of f er s t o pl ay
basket bal l out si de of Di vi si on I . I d. I n cont r ast , r oughl y
ni net y- f i ve per cent of al l r ecr ui t s of f er ed Di vi si on I basket bal l
schol ar shi ps i n t he Ri val s. comsampl e accept ed one. I d. Thi s
dat a suppor t s Dr . Nol l ’ s concl usi on t hat “i f t he t op at hl et es ar e
of f er ed a D- I schol ar shi p, t hey t ake i t . They do not go anywher e
el se. ” Tr i al Tr . 114: 6- : 7.
On cr oss- exami nat i on, Dr . Nol l conceded t hat t he Ri val s. com
dat a he used i n hi s anal ysi s came f r omr ecr ui t s’ sel f - r epor t ed
i nf or mat i on about t he schol ar shi p of f er s t hey r ecei ved and
accept ed. I d. 486: 7- : 9. However , t hi s f act does not r ender Dr .
Nol l ’ s opi ni on unr el i abl e. Recr ui t s have a st r ong i ncent i ve t o
r epor t accur at e i nf or mat i on t o Ri val s. combecause t he i nf or mat i on
i s r el at i vel y easy t o ver i f y; af t er al l , a r ecr ui t ’ s l i e about
accept i ng a schol ar shi p f r oma par t i cul ar school wi l l be
di scover ed as soon as hi s name does not appear on t hat school ’ s
r ost er or l i st of commi t t ed r ecr ui t s. I n any event , t he NCAA has
not pr esent ed any dat a of i t s own t o cont r adi ct t he Ri val s. com
dat a nor any ot her evi dence, exper t or ot her wi se, t o cast doubt on
Dr . Nol l ’ s concl usi on t hat t her e ar e no subst i t ut es f or t he
oppor t uni t i es of f er ed by FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
school s.
The onl y pot ent i al subst i t ut es t hat t he NCAA has i dent i f i ed
ar e t he oppor t uni t i es of f er ed by school s i n ot her di vi si ons,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page9 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
col l egi at e at hl et i cs associ at i ons, or mi nor and f or ei gn
pr of essi onal spor t s l eagues. None of t hese ot her di vi si ons,
associ at i ons, or pr of essi onal l eagues, however , pr ovi des t he same
combi nat i on of goods and ser vi ces of f er ed by FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s. School s i n FCS and Di vi si ons I I
and I I I al l pr ovi de a l ower number of schol ar shi ps t han FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s, whi ch r esul t s i n a
l ower l evel of at hl et i c compet i t i on. The Nat i onal I nt er col l egi at e
At hl et i c Associ at i on ( NAI A) , Nat i onal J uni or Col l ege At hl et i c
Associ at i on ( NJ CAA) , Nat i onal Chr i st i an Col l egi at e At hl et i c
Associ at i on ( NCCAA) , and Uni t ed St at es Col l egi at e At hl et i c
Associ at i on ( USCAA) l i kewi se pr ovi de f ewer schol ar shi ps and of f er
a l ower l evel of compet i t i on. What ’ s mor e, t he school s i n t hese
ot her di vi si ons and associ at i ons ar e of t en smal l er t han FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s, spend much l ess on
at hl et i cs, and may not even pr ovi de oppor t uni t i es t o at t end a
f our - year col l ege. I d. 2824: 14- : 24, 2826: 16- 2827: 7, 2829: 17-
2830: 12 ( St i r oh) . Thi s i s why, as Dr . Nol l concl uded, t hese ot her
school s do not compet e wi t h FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
school s f or r ecr ui t s.
Dr . Nol l al so anal yzed t he Ri val s. comdat a t o show t hat FBS
school s al most al ways def eat ed non- FBS school s i n head- t o- head
r ecr ui t i ng cont est s f or t he same f oot bal l r ecr ui t bet ween 2007 and
2011. I d. 116: 6- 118: 11, 474: 23- 475: 14; Ex. 2530. Hi s anal ysi s of
head- t o- head r ecr ui t i ng cont est s f or basket bal l pl ayer s r eveal ed
t he same di scr epancy bet ween Di vi si on I and non- Di vi si on I
school s. Tr i al Tr . 116: 6- 118: 11. Not abl y, he di d not obser ve
t hi s di scr epancy when compar i ng head- t o- head r ecr ui t i ng cont est s
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page10 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
among FBS f oot bal l school s or Di vi si on I basket bal l school s. I d. ;
Ex. 2530 at 3. Even when he compar ed t he success of t he school s
wi t hi n t he f i ve maj or Di vi si on I conf er ences - - namel y, t he
Paci f i c 12 Conf er ence ( Pac 12) , Bi g 12 Conf er ence, At l ant i c Coast
Conf er ence, Sout heast er n Conf er ence ( SEC) , and Bi g 10
Conf er ence - - t o t hat of school s i n l ess pr omi nent Di vi si on I
conf er ences, he f ound t hat t hey wer e st i l l i n compet i t i on wi t h
each ot her . Tr i al Tr . 116: 9- : 13 ( “And unl i ke t he f i ndi ng f or
ot her di vi si ons and j uni or col l eges and NAI A and al l t he r est t hat
was i n t he f i r st pi ct ur e, what we f i nd her e i s t hat al t hough t he
maj or conf er ences wi n mor e t han t hey l ose, i n compet i ng agai nst
t he l esser conf er ences, t her e i s consi der abl e compet i t i ve
over l ap. ”) . Thus, t he bundl es of goods and ser vi ces of f er ed by
school s i n FCS, Di vi si ons I I and I I I , and ot her non- NCAA
col l egi at e at hl et i cs associ at i ons ar e not subst i t ut es f or t he
bundl es of goods and ser vi ces of f er ed by FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on
I basket bal l school s.
Nor ar e t he oppor t uni t i es of f er ed by t he pr of essi onal l eagues
t hat t he NCAA has i dent i f i ed her e. Dr . Nol l not ed t hat el i t e
f oot bal l and basket bal l r ecr ui t s r ar el y f or ego oppor t uni t i es t o
pl ay FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l i n or der t o pl ay
pr of essi onal l y. Nei t her t he Nat i onal Foot bal l League ( NFL) nor
t he Nat i onal Basket bal l Associ at i on ( NBA) per mi t s pl ayer s t o ent er
t he l eague i mmedi at el y af t er hi gh school . I d. 68: 17- 69: 6
( O’ Bannon) . Al t hough ot her pr of essi onal l eagues - - such as t he
NBA Devel opment League ( D- League) , t he Ar ena Foot bal l League
( AFL) , and cer t ai n f or ei gn f oot bal l and basket bal l l eagues - -
per mi t pl ayer s t o j oi n i mmedi at el y af t er hi gh school , r ecr ui t s do
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page11 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not t ypi cal l y pur sue oppor t uni t i es i n t hose l eagues. I d.
482: 11- : 13 ( Nol l ) . When Dr . Nol l was asked why he di d not conduct
an anal ysi s of r ecr ui t s who chose t o pl ay pr of essi onal l y i n t hese
l eagues, he r epl i ed t hat t oo f ew had ever done so t o conduct such
an anal ysi s. I d. 484: 19- 485: 13 ( “I t woul d be har d t o do an
anal ysi s of zer o. ”) . He al so not ed t hat many r ecr ui t s may not
even be gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o pl ay i n t hese l eagues. I d.
482: 14- : 17 ( “The oppor t uni t y i s not gi ven t o ver y many hi gh school
at hl et es t o pl ay i n Eur ope. ”) . What ’ s mor e, none of t hese l eagues
of f er s t he same oppor t uni t y t o ear n a hi gher educat i on t hat FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s pr ovi de. For al l of
t hese r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t her e ar e no pr of essi onal
f oot bal l or basket bal l l eagues capabl e of suppl yi ng a subst i t ut e
f or t he bundl e of goods and ser vi ces t hat FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s pr ovi de. These school s compr i se a
r el evant col l ege educat i on mar ket , as descr i bed above.
B. Gr oup Li censi ng Mar ket
Pr of essi onal at hl et es of t en sel l gr oup l i censes t o use t hei r
names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve game t el ecast s, vi deogames,
game r e- br oadcast s, adver t i sement s, and ot her ar chi val f oot age.
4

Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , i n t he absence of t he NCAA’ s chal l enged
r ul es, FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s woul d al so
be abl e t o sel l gr oup l i censes f or t he use of t hei r names, i mages,

4
Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed some evi dence at t r i al of a mar ket f or
l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n ot her
mer chandi se, such as j er seys and bobbl eheads. The Cour t does not
addr ess t hi s mar ket because Pl ai nt i f f s pr evi ousl y abandoned al l of t hei r
cl ai ms r el at ed t o such mar ket s. Docket No. 827, J une 20, 2013 Hr g. Tr .
54: 13- : 16. I n addi t i on, t he evi dence t hey pr esent ed at t r i al r egar di ng
mer chandi se- r el at ed l i censes di d not const i t ut e pr oof of a mar ket f or
gr oup l i censes but , r at her , onl y i ndi vi dual l i censes.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page12 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and l i kenesses. Speci f i cal l y, t hey cont end t hat member s of
cer t ai n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams woul d be abl e
t o j oi n t oget her t o of f er gr oup l i censes, whi ch t hey woul d t hen be
abl e t o sel l t o t hei r r espect i ve school s, t hi r d- par t y l i censi ng
compani es, or medi a compani es seeki ng t o use st udent - at hl et es’
names, i mages, and l i kenesses. Pl ai nt i f f s have i dent i f i ed t hr ee
submar ket s wi t hi n t hi s br oader gr oup l i censi ng mar ket : ( 1) a
submar ket f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve f oot bal l and basket bal l game
t el ecast s; ( 2) a submar ket f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent -
at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n vi deogames; and ( 3) a
submar ket f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses i n game r e- br oadcast s, adver t i sement s, and
ot her ar chi val f oot age.

1. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n Li ve
Game Tel ecast s
The Cour t f i nds t hat a submar ket exi st s i n whi ch t el evi si on
net wor ks seek t o acqui r e gr oup l i censes t o use FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n
l i ve game t el ecast s. Tel evi si on net wor ks f r equent l y ent er i nt o
l i censi ng agr eement s t o use t he i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y of school s,
conf er ences, and event or gani zer s - - such as t he NCAA or a bowl
commi t t ee - - i n l i ve t el ecast s of f oot bal l and basket bal l games.
I n t hese agr eement s, t he net wor ks of t en seek t o acqui r e t he r i ght s
t o use t he names, i mages, and l i kenesses of t he par t i ci pat i ng
st udent - at hl et es dur i ng t he t el ecast . For i nst ance, t he NCAA’ s
1994 l i censi ng agr eement gr ant i ng CBS t he r i ght s t o t el ecast t he
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page13 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Di vi si on I men’ s basket bal l t our nament ever y year f r om1995 t o
2002 i ncl udes a “Name & Li keness” pr ovi si on t hat st at es:

The Net wor k, i t s sponsor s, t hei r adver t i si ng
r epr esent at i ves and t he st at i ons car r yi ng t he
t el ecast s of t he games wi l l have t he r i ght t o
make appr opr i at e r ef er ences ( i ncl udi ng wi t hout
l i mi t at i on, use of pi ct ur es) t o NCAA and t he
uni ver si t i es and col l eges of t he t eams, t he
si t es, t he games and t he par t i ci pant s i n and
ot her s i dent i f i ed wi t h t he games and i n t he
t el ecast i ng t her eof , pr ovi ded t hat t he same do
not const i t ut e endor sement s of a commer ci al
pr oduct .
Ex. 2104 at 16 ( emphasi s added) . A 1999 agr eement bet ween t he
NCAA and CBS f or t he r i ght s t o t el ecast cer t ai n Di vi si on I
basket bal l games cont ai ns a “Name & Li keness” pr ovi si on wi t h
near l y i dent i cal l anguage. Ex. 2116 at 17 ( gr ant i ng t he “r i ght t o
make appr opr i at e r ef er ences ( i ncl udi ng wi t hout l i mi t at i on, use of
pi ct ur es) t o . . . t he par t i ci pant s i n and ot her s i dent i f i ed wi t h
t he games” ( emphasi s added) ) . An agr eement bet ween t he FBS
conf er ences, t he Uni ver si t y of Not r e Dame, and Fox Br oadcast i ng
Company f or t he r i ght s t o t el ecast cer t ai n 2007, 2008, and 2009
bowl games si mi l ar l y pr ovi des t hat t he event or gani zer wi l l be
sol el y r esponsi bl e f or ensur i ng t hat Fox has “t he r i ght s t o use
t he name and l i keness, phot ogr aphs and bi ogr aphi es of al l
par t i ci pant s, game of f i ci al s, cheer l eader s” and ot her i ndi vi dual s
connect ed t o t he game. Ex. 2162 at 9. Pl ai nt i f f s al so pr ovi ded
ot her cont r act s cont ai ni ng si mi l ar l anguage. See, e. g. , Ex. 2230
at 10 ( gr ant i ng t he br oadcast er “al l name and l i keness r i ght s of
al l par t i ci pant s, of f i ci al s, compet i ng t eams and any ot her per sons
connect ed wi t h t he Event s t hat ar e r easonabl e or necessar y f or t he
Tel ecast of t he Event s”) ; Ex. 3078 at 2- 3 ( pr ovi di ng t hat t he Bi g
10 woul d use “r easonabl e commer ci al ef f or t s” t o obt ai n f r omany
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page14 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
non- conf er ence opponent t he “r i ght . . . t o use i t s r espect i ve
pl ayer s’ names, l i kenesses, and t hat school ’ s t r ademar ks, l ogos
and ot her i t ems i n pr omot i ng, adver t i si ng and Tel ecast i ng any such
game”) . These cont r act s demonst r at e t hat t her e i s a demand f or
t hese r i ght s among t el evi si on net wor ks.
Pl ai nt i f f s’ br oadcast i ng i ndust r y exper t , Edwi n Desser ,
conf i r med t hat pr ovi si ons l i ke t hese ar e common and t hat t hey have
economi c val ue t o t el evi si on net wor ks. Tr i al Tr . 651: 9- : 11,
699: 18- 700: 3, 681: 18- : 23 ( “I f you’ r e r unni ng a busi ness l i ke a
t el evi si on net wor k, a br oadcast st at i on, you woul d pr ef er t o have
consent s, and you woul d l i ke t o have somebody st and behi nd t hose
consent s so t hat you don’ t have t o wor r y about somebody comi ng
af t er you l at er wi t h a cl ai m. ”) . Thus, a mar ket f or t hese r i ght s
exi st s. Pl ai nt i f f s al so demonst r at ed t hat t hi s i s a mar ket f or
gr oup l i censes - - not i ndi vi dual l i censes. Mr . Desser t est i f i ed
t hat a “t el evi si on spor t s agr eement i s a bundl e of r i ght s and
r esponsi bi l i t i es t hat ar e al l i nt er r el at ed and t hat , you know,
cr eat e val ue, pr ovi de comf or t , and ar e [ ] i nt egr at ed i nt o t he
agr eement . ” I d. 658: 14- : 19. A l i cense t o use an i ndi vi dual
st udent - at hl et e’ s name, i mage, and l i keness dur i ng a game t el ecast
woul d not have any val ue t o a t el evi si on net wor k unl ess i t was
bundl ed wi t h l i censes t o use ever y ot her par t i ci pat i ng st udent -
at hl et e’ s name, i mage, and l i keness.
The NCAA’ s br oadcast i ng i ndust r y exper t , Neal Pi l son,
t est i f i ed t hat spor t s br oadcast er s need not acqui r e t he r i ght s t o
use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses and t hat t he
pr i mar y r eason t hey ent er i nt o l i censi ng agr eement s wi t h event
or gani zer s i s t o gai n excl usi ve access t o t he f aci l i t y wher e t he
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page15 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
event wi l l occur . Tr i al Tr . 720: 5- : 17. Thi s t est i mony i s not
convi nci ng. Mr . Pi l son admi t t ed t hat br oadcast er s must acqui r e
cer t ai n r i ght s even f r omvi si t i ng t eams who do not cont r ol access
t o t he event f aci l i t y. I d. 803: 5- 804: 8. He al so acknowl edged
t hat br oadcast i ng agr eement s - - l i ke t hose quot ed above - -
somet i mes r ef er expr essl y t o name, i mage, and l i keness “r i ght s. ”
I d. 805: 2- : 16. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat , absent t he
chal l enged NCAA r ul es, t eams of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l pl ayer s woul d be abl e t o cr eat e and sel l gr oup l i censes
f or t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve game
t el ecast s.

2. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n
Vi deogames
Li ke t el evi si on net wor ks, vi deogame devel oper s woul d seek t o
acqui r e gr oup l i censes t o use t he names, i mages, and l i kenesses of
FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s i f t he NCAA di d not
pr ohi bi t st udent - at hl et es f r omsel l i ng such l i censes. EA seeks t o
make al l of i t s spor t s- t hemed vi deogames “as aut hent i c as
possi bl e. ” Tr i al Tr . 1656: 7 ( Li nzner ) . One of t he company’ s vi ce
pr esi dent s, J oel Li nzner , expl ai ned, “We have f ound t hat i t i s
pl easi ng t o our cust omer s t o be abl e t o use t he r eal at hl et es
depi ct ed as r eal i st i cal l y as possi bl e and act i ng as r eal i st i cal l y
as possi bl e. ” I d. 1658: 3- : 6; see al so Ex. 2007 at 50- 54
( descr i bi ng demand f or use of st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and
l i kenesses i n vi deogames) . To do t hi s, t he company t ypi cal l y
negot i at es l i censes wi t h pr of essi onal spor t s l eagues and t eams t o
use t hei r t r ademar ks, l ogos, and ot her i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y i n
vi deogames. Tr i al Tr . 1656: 10- 1657: 25. I t al so negot i at es wi t h
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page16 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gr oups of pr of essi onal at hl et es f or l i censes t o use t hei r names,
i mages, and l i kenesses. I d. EA woul d be i nt er est ed i n acqui r i ng
t he same r i ght s f r omst udent - at hl et es i n or der t o pr oduce col l ege
spor t s- t hemed vi deogames, i f i t wer e per mi t t ed t o do so. I d.
1669: 24- 1670: 24. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat , absent t he
chal l enged NCAA r ul es, t her e woul d be a demand among vi deogame
devel oper s f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses.
The NCAA asser t s t hat such demand woul d not exi st because i t
has ceased l i censi ng i t s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y f or use i n
vi deogames, maki ng i t unl i kel y t hat any devel oper woul d seek t o
devel op a vi deogame usi ng t he names, i mages, and l i kenesses of
st udent - at hl et es. Thi s asser t i on i s not suppor t ed by t he t r i al
r ecor d. Al t hough t he NCAA r ecent l y decl i ned t o r enew i t s l i cense
wi t h EA, i t has not pr esent ed any evi dence suggest i ng t hat i t wi l l
never ent er i nt o such an agr eement agai n i n t he f ut ur e. None of
i t s cur r ent byl aws pr ecl ude i t f r oment er i ng i nt o such an
agr eement . Fur t her mor e, t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al
demonst r at es t hat , pr i or t o t hi s l i t i gat i on, t he NCAA f ound i t
pr of i t abl e t o l i cense i t s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y f or use i n
vi deogames. I ndeed, i t cont i nued t o r enew i t s annual l i censi ng
agr eement wi t h EA, even as t he company evaded t he NCAA’ s r ul es
pr ohi bi t i ng i t f r omusi ng st udent - at hl et es’ i mages and l i kenesses
i n vi deogames. Thr oughout t he l at e 2000s, EA’ s NCAA- br anded
vi deogames f eat ur ed pl ayabl e avat ar s t hat coul d easi l y be
i dent i f i ed as r eal st udent - at hl et es despi t e t he NCAA’ s expr ess
pr ohi bi t i on on f eat ur i ng st udent - at hl et es i n vi deogames. The EA
avat ar s pl ayed t he same posi t i ons as t hei r r eal - l i f e count er par t s,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page17 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wor e t he same j er sey number s and uni f or maccessor i es, hal ed f r om
t he same home st at e, and shar ed t he same hei ght , wei ght ,
handedness, and ski n col or . Tr i al Tr . 27: 14- 28: 11 ( O’ Bannon) ;
568: 6- 569: 24 ( Pr ot hr o) ; 930: 5- 931: 7 ( Rascher ) . For al l of t hese
r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat a submar ket woul d exi st f or gr oup
l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n
vi deogames i f st udent - at hl et es wer e per mi t t ed t o r ecei ve
compensat i on f or such l i censes.

3. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n Game Re-
Br oadcast s, Adver t i sement s, and Ot her Ar chi val
Foot age
Pl ai nt i f f s have shown t hat t el evi si on net wor ks, adver t i ser s,
and t hi r d- par t y l i censi ng compani es seek t o use ar chi val f oot age
of st udent - at hl et es i n game r e- br oadcast s, commer ci al s, and ot her
pr oduct s. Sever al of t he l i ve t el ecast i ng agr eement s di scussed
above i ncl uded pr ovi si ons gr ant i ng t he t el evi si on net wor k t he
r i ght s t o use ar chi val f oot age, as wel l . See, e. g. Ex. 3078 at 2-
3 ( gr ant i ng t he Bi g 10 Net wor k t he r i ght s t o use cer t ai n st udent -
at hl et es’ names and l i kenesses i n “pr omot i ng, adver t i si ng and
Tel ecast i ng” a game) ; Ex. 2230 at 2 ( gr ant i ng Fox Spor t s Net t he
“r i ght t o r e- Tel ecast t he Sel ect ed Event s, ” t he “r i ght t o
di st r i but e hi ghl i ght s of t he Sel ect ed Event s, ” and t he speci f i c
r i ght t o use t he “names and l i kenesses of t he pl ayer s” t o pr omot e
cer t ai n games as wel l as t he net wor k i t sel f ) . Tyr one Pr ot hr o, a
f or mer wi de r ecei ver f or t he Uni ver si t y of Al abama, saw f oot age i n
a commer ci al of a f amous cat ch t hat he made dur i ng a game. Tr i al
Tr . 565: 24- 566: 8. Fi nal l y, one of t he NCAA’ s vi ce pr esi dent s,
Mar k Lewi s, est abl i shed t hat t he NCAA has l i censed al l of i t s
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page18 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ar chi val f oot age f r ompast NCAA champi onshi ps t o a t hi r d- par t y
l i censi ng company, T3Medi a, whi ch act s as t he associ at i on’ s agent
i n l i censi ng t hat f oot age f or use i n game r e- br oadcast s,
adver t i sement s, and any ot her pr oduct s. I d. 3206: 13- : 25.
Al t hough T3Medi a i s not per mi t t ed t o l i cense f oot age of cur r ent
st udent - at hl et es, i t st i l l acqui r es t he r i ght s t o t hi s f oot age
whi l e t he st udent - at hl et es ar e i n school f or l at er use ( af t er
acqui r i ng t he st udent - at hl et es’ consent ) . Thi s i s enough t o show
t hat demand f or t hi s f oot age exi st s. Based on t hi s evi dence, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat , absent t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es, t her e woul d
be a demand among t el evi si on net wor ks, t hi r d- par t y l i censi ng
compani es, and adver t i ser s f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent -
at hl et es i n game r e- br oadcast s, adver t i sement s, and ot her ar chi val
f oot age.
I I I . The Chal l enged Rest r ai nt
NCAA r ul es pr ohi bi t cur r ent st udent - at hl et es f r omr ecei vi ng
any compensat i on f r omt hei r school s or out si de sour ces f or t he use
of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve game t el ecast s,
vi deogames, game r e- br oadcast s, adver t i sement s, and ot her f oot age.
Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t hese r ul es r est r ai n t r ade i n t he t wo
mar ket s i dent i f i ed above.
The NCAA i mposes st r i ct l i mi t s on t he amount of compensat i on
t hat st udent - at hl et es may r ecei ve f r omt hei r school s. Most
i mpor t ant l y, i t pr ohi bi t s any st udent - at hl et e f r omr ecei vi ng
“f i nanci al ai d based on at hl et i cs abi l i t y” t hat exceeds t he val ue
of a f ul l “gr ant - i n- ai d. ” Ex. 2340 at 208. The byl aws def i ne a
f ul l “gr ant - i n- ai d” as “f i nanci al ai d t hat consi st s of t ui t i on and
f ees, r oomand boar d, and r equi r ed cour se- r el at ed books. ” I d. at
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page19 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
207. Thi s amount var i es f r omschool t o school and f r omyear t o
year . Any st udent - at hl et e who r ecei ves f i nanci al ai d i n excess of
t hi s amount f or f ei t s hi s at hl et i c el i gi bi l i t y. I d. at 208.
I n addi t i on t o t hi s cap on at hl et i cs- based f i nanci al ai d, t he
NCAA al so i mposes a separ at e cap on t he t ot al amount of f i nanci al
ai d t hat a st udent - at hl et e may r ecei ve. Speci f i cal l y, i t
pr ohi bi t s any st udent - at hl et e f r omr ecei vi ng f i nanci al ai d i n
excess of hi s “cost of at t endance. ” Ex. 2340 at 208. Li ke t he
t er m“gr ant - i n- ai d, ” t he t er m“cost of at t endance” i s a school -
speci f i c f i gur e def i ned i n t he byl aws. I t r ef er s t o “an amount
cal cul at ed by [ a school ] ’ s f i nanci al ai d of f i ce, usi ng f eder al
r egul at i ons, t hat i ncl udes t he t ot al cost of t ui t i on and f ees,
r oomand boar d, books and suppl i es, t r anspor t at i on, and ot her
expenses r el at ed t o at t endance” at t hat school . I d. at 206.
Because i t cover s t he cost of “suppl i es, t r anspor t at i on, and ot her
expenses, ” t he cost of at t endance i s gener al l y hi gher t han t he
val ue of a f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d. The gap bet ween t he f ul l gr ant - i n-
ai d and t he cost of at t endance var i es f r omschool t o school but i s
t ypi cal l y a f ew t housand dol l ar s.
5

The NCAA al so pr ohi bi t s any st udent - at hl et e f r omr ecei vi ng
compensat i on f r omout si de sour ces based on hi s at hl et i c ski l l s or
abi l i t y.
6
Thus, whi l e a st udent - at hl et e may gener al l y ear n money

5

Under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, a st udent - at hl et e who has an
unexpect ed “speci al f i nanci al need” may be per mi t t ed t o r ecei ve
addi t i onal ai d beyond t he cost of at t endance. Tr i al Tr . 2144: 25-
2145: 14 ( Pet r ) . Thi s addi t i onal ai d comes f r omhi s school ’ s “st udent
assi st ance f und” and coul d i ncl ude money f or “needed cl ot hi ng, needed
suppl i es, a comput er , ” or ot her academi c needs. Ex. 2340 at 238.
6
The NCAA’ s byl aws cont ai n a mi nor except i on per mi t t i ng st udent -
at hl et es t o r ecei ve l i mi t ed compensat i on f or educat i onal expenses
“awar ded by t he U. S. Ol ympi c Commi t t ee or a U. S. nat i onal gover ni ng
body. ” Ex. 2340 at 211.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page20 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f r omany “on- or of f - campus empl oyment ” unr el at ed t o hi s at hl et i c
abi l i t y, he may not r ecei ve “any r emuner at i on f or val ue or ut i l i t y
t hat t he st udent - at hl et e may have f or t he empl oyer because of t he
publ i ci t y, r eput at i on, f ame or per sonal f ol l owi ng t hat he or she
has obt ai ned because of at hl et i cs abi l i t y. ” I d. at 211. St udent -
at hl et es ar e al so bar r ed f r omendor si ng any commer ci al pr oduct or
ser vi ce whi l e t hey ar e i n school , r egar dl ess of whet her or not
t hey r ecei ve any compensat i on t o do so. I d. at 86.
Dr . Nol l t est i f i ed t hat t hese r ul es r est r ai n compet i t i on
among school s f or r ecr ui t s. I f t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t wer e
hi gher , school s woul d compet e f or t he best r ecr ui t s by of f er i ng
t heml ar ger gr ant s- i n- ai d. Si mi l ar l y, i f t ot al f i nanci al ai d was
not capped at t he cost of at t endance, school s woul d compet e f or
t he best r ecr ui t s by of f er i ng t hemcompensat i on exceedi ng t he cost
of at t endance. Thi s compet i t i on woul d ef f ect i vel y l ower t he pr i ce
t hat t he r ecr ui t s must pay f or t he combi nat i on of educat i onal and
at hl et i c oppor t uni t i es t hat t he school s pr ovi de. As Dr . Nol l
expl ai ned, “i f t he schol ar shi p val ue i s suppr essed, t hat means t he
net pr i ce pai d by a st udent - at hl et e t o at t end col l ege i s hi gher . ”
Tr i al Tr . 105: 24- 107: 1. Thus, he expl ai ned, because t he NCAA has
t he power t o and does suppr ess t he val ue of at hl et i c schol ar shi ps
t hr ough i t s gr ant - i n- ai d r ul es, i t has i ncr eased t he pr i ces
school s char ge r ecr ui t s. I d. 127: 20- 129: 13.
Dr . Nol l ’ s opi ni ons ar e consi st ent wi t h t he opi ni ons of t he
NCAA’ s own economi c exper t , Dr . Dani el Rubi nf el d, who t est i f i ed
t hat t he NCAA oper at es as a “j oi nt vent ur e whi ch i mposes
r est r ai nt s” on t r ade. I d. 2922: 20- : 21. Dr . Rubi nf el d
speci f i cal l y acknowl edged t hat “t he NCAA does i mpose a r est r ai nt ,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page21 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t he r est r ai nt we have been di scussi ng i n t hi s case. ” I d.
2921: 8- : 9. Al t hough he opi ned t hat t hi s r est r ai nt was l awf ul
because i t ser ves pr ocompet i t i ve pur poses, he never deni ed t hat
t he NCAA r est r i ct s compet i t i on among i t s member s f or r ecr ui t s. I n
f act , hi s own economi cs t ext book speci f i cal l y r ef er s t o t he NCAA
as a “car t el , ” whi ch he def i ned dur i ng hi s t est i mony as “a gr oup
of f i r ms t hat i mpose a r est r ai nt . ” I d. 2975: 3- : 4. Al t hough t he
NCAA’ s ot her economi c exper t , Dr . Laur en St i r oh, t est i f i ed t hat
t he NCAA does not r est r ai n compet i t i on i n any mar ket , her opi ni ons
wer e based on t he t heor y t hat ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s cannot ar i se
unl ess consumer s i n a “downst r eammar ket ” ar e har med. I d.
2766: 16- : 22. I n t hi s case, t hose consumer s woul d be peopl e who
wat ch or at t end col l ege f oot bal l and basket bal l games or pur chase
goods usi ng t he names, i mages, and l i kenesses of st udent - at hl et es.
The Cour t r ej ect s Dr . St i r oh’ s t heor y t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot show
any ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s caused by t he al l eged r est r ai nt
wi t hout demonst r at i ng some har mt o t hese consumer s. The evi dence
ci t ed above demonst r at es t hat st udent - at hl et es t hemsel ves ar e
har med by t he pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement among FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s. I n t he compl ex exchange
r epr esent ed by a r ecr ui t ’ s deci si on t o at t end and pl ay f or a
par t i cul ar school , t he school pr ovi des t ui t i on, r oomand boar d,
f ees, and book expenses, of t en at l i t t l e or no cost t o t he school .
The r ecr ui t pr ovi des hi s at hl et i c per f or mance and t he use of hi s
name, i mage, and l i keness. However , t he school s agr ee t o val ue
t he l at t er at zer o by agr eei ng not t o compet e wi t h each ot her t o
cr edi t any ot her val ue t o t he r ecr ui t i n t he exchange. Thi s i s an
ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect . Thus, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA has
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page22 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t he power - - and exer ci ses t hat power - - t o f i x pr i ces and
r est r ai n compet i t i on i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s have i dent i f i ed.
Dr . Nol l t est i f i ed t hat el i t e f oot bal l and basket bal l
r ecr ui t s - - t he buyer s i n Pl ai nt i f f s’ col l ege educat i on mar ket - -
coul d al so be char act er i zed as sel l er s i n an al most i dent i cal
mar ket f or t hei r at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s. I d.
143: 21- 144: 8. I n t hat mar ket , FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l school s ar e buyer s seeki ng t o acqui r e r ecr ui t s’
at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s, payi ng f or t hemwi t h f ul l
gr ant s- i n- ai d but no mor e. Fr omt hat per spect i ve, t he NCAA’ s
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on st i l l r epr esent a
f or mof pr i ce f i xi ng but cr eat e a buyer s’ car t el , r at her t han a
sel l er s’ car t el . J ust as i n Pl ai nt i f f s’ col l ege educat i on mar ket ,
school s woul d engage i n pr i ce compet i t i on i n t he mar ket f or
r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s i f t her e wer e no
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on; t he onl y di f f er ence
woul d be t hat t hey woul d be vi ewed as buyer s i n t he t r ansact i ons
r at her t han sel l er s. Thus, because Pl ai nt i f f s’ col l ege educat i on
mar ket i s essent i al l y a mi r r or i mage of t he mar ket f or r ecr ui t s’
at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he
NCAA exer ci ses mar ket power , f i xes pr i ces, and r est r ai ns
compet i t i on i n bot h mar ket s.
I V. Asser t ed Pur poses of t he Rest r ai nt
The NCAA asser t s t hat t he chal l enged r est r i ct i ons on st udent -
at hl et e compensat i on ar e r easonabl e because t hey ar e necessar y t o
pr eser ve i t s t r adi t i on of amat eur i sm, mai nt ai n compet i t i ve bal ance
among FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams, pr omot e t he
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page23 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs, and i ncr ease t he t ot al
out put of i t s pr oduct .
A. Pr eser vat i on of Amat eur i sm
The NCAA asser t s t hat i t s chal l enged r ul es pr omot e consumer
demand f or i t s pr oduct by pr eser vi ng i t s t r adi t i on of amat eur i sm
i n col l ege spor t s. I t r el i es on hi st or i cal evi dence, consumer
sur vey dat a, and l ay wi t ness t est i mony t o suppor t t hi s asser t i on.
The Cour t does not f i nd t hi s evi dence suf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y t he
chal l enged r est r ai nt .
Dr . Emmer t t est i f i ed t hat “t he r ul es over t he hundr ed- year
hi st or y of t he NCAA ar ound amat eur i smhave f ocused on, f i r st of
al l , maki ng sur e t hat any r esour ces t hat ar e pr ovi ded t o a
st udent - at hl et e ar e onl y t hose t hat ar e f ocused on hi s or her
get t i ng an educat i on. ” Tr i al Tr . 1737: 8- : 12. The hi st or i cal
evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , however , demonst r at es t hat t he
associ at i on’ s amat eur i smr ul es have not been near l y as consi st ent
as Dr . Emmer t r epr esent s. I n f act , t hese r ul es have changed
numer ous t i mes si nce t he NCAA - - t hen known as t he I nt er col l egi at e
At hl et i c Associ at i on ( I AA) - - enact ed i t s f i r st set of byl aws i n
1906. The I AA’ s f i r st byl aws gover ni ng amat eur i smpr ovi ded,

No st udent shal l r epr esent a Col l ege or
Uni ver si t y i n an i nt er col l egi at e game or
cont est who i s pai d or r ecei ves, di r ect l y or
i ndi r ect l y, any money or f i nanci al concessi on
or emol ument as past or pr esent compensat i on
f or , or as pr i or consi der at i on or i nducement
t o pl ay i n, or ent er any at hl et i c cont est ,
whet her t he sai d r emuner at i on be r ecei ved
f r om, or pai d by, or at t he i nst ance of any
or gani zat i on, commi t t ee or f acul t y of such
Col l ege or Uni ver si t y, or any i ndi vi dual
what ever .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page24 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶¶ 6- 7. Thi s r ul e woul d have bar r ed even
t oday’ s at hl et i c schol ar shi ps. Despi t e t he br eadt h of t hi s
wr i t t en pr ohi bi t i on, t he I AA’ s member school s r ecr ui t ed st udent s
usi ng “pl ayer subsi di es” and ot her i l l i ci t f or ms of payment . I d.
¶ 10.

I n 1916, af t er changi ng i t s name t o t he NCAA, t he associ at i on
adopt ed a new r ul e st at i ng t hat an amat eur was “one who
par t i ci pat es i n compet i t i ve physi cal spor t s onl y f or pl easur e, and
t he physi cal , ment al , mor al , and soci al benef i t s di r ect l y der i ved
t her ef r om. ” I d. The NCAA amended t hat def i ni t i on i n 1922 t o
def i ne an amat eur as “one who engages i n spor t sol el y f or t he
physi cal , ment al or soci al benef i t s he der i ves t her ef r om, and t o
whomt he spor t i s not hi ng mor e t han an avocat i on. ” I d. ¶ 14.
Most school s cont i nued t o i gnor e t hese r ul es f or t he f i r st
f ew decades of t he NCAA’ s exi st ence. I d. ¶¶ 17- 20. Then, i n
1948, t he NCAA enact ed a st r i ct set of r ul es known as t he “Sani t y
Code” desi gned t o cur b vi ol at i ons of i t s byl aws. I d. ¶ 20. The
Sani t y Code “r equi r ed t hat f i nanci al ai d be awar ded wi t hout
consi der at i on of at hl et i cs abi l i t y, ” whi ch, agai n, woul d have
pr ohi bi t ed t oday’ s at hl et i c schol ar shi ps. I d. The NCAA r epeal ed
t he Sani t y Code t he f ol l owi ng year and, i n 1952, cr eat ed i t s f i r st
enf or cement commi t t ee t o addr ess and pr event r ul es i nf r act i ons.
I d. ¶ 24.
I n 1956, t he NCAA enact ed a new set of amat eur i smr ul es
per mi t t i ng school s t o awar d at hl et i c schol ar shi ps t o st udent -
at hl et es. I d. ¶ 25. These r ul es est abl i shed a nat i onal st andar d
gover ni ng at hl et i cs- based f i nanci al ai d and i mposed a l i mi t on t he
si ze of at hl et i c schol ar shi ps t hat school s wer e per mi t t ed t o
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page25 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of f er . I d. That l i mi t - - now known as a f ul l “gr ant - i n- ai d” - -
pr ecl uded st udent - at hl et es f r omr ecei vi ng any f i nanci al ai d beyond
t hat needed f or “commonl y accept ed educat i onal expenses, ”
i ncl udi ng t ui t i on, f ees, r oomand boar d, books, and cash f or
i nci dent al expenses such as l aundr y. I d.
The NCAA cont i nued t o r evi se i t s schol ar shi p l i mi t s af t er
i mpl ement i ng t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t i n 1956. I n 1975, f or
i nst ance, i t r emoved t he cash f or i nci dent al expenses f r omt he
f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d. Wal t er Byer s Depo. 21: 21- 22: 14, 24: 6- : 17. I t
amended t he gr ant - i n- ai d r ul es agai n i n 2004 by al l owi ng st udent -
at hl et es who r ecei ve f eder al Pel l gr ant s t o r ecei ve t ot al
assi st ance i n excess of a f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d and even i n excess of
t he cost of at t endance. Tr i al Tr . 161: 10- 162: 4 ( Nol l ) ; Ex. 2340
at 208. As a r esul t , st udent - at hl et es who qual i f y f or a Pel l
gr ant ar e now el i gi bl e t o r ecei ve a f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d pl us t he
val ue of t hei r Pel l gr ant - - cur r ent l y, j ust over $5, 500 - - even
i f t hat t ot al exceeds t he cost of at t endance. Tr i al Tr .
1573: 8- : 16 ( Past i des) ; Ex. 2340 at 208. The NCAA amended i t s
r ul es agai n i n 2013 t o per mi t di f f er ent l evel s of compensat i on f or
r ecr ui t s i n di f f er ent spor t s. The new r ul es per mi t Di vi si on I
t enni s r ecr ui t s t o ear n up t o t en t housand dol l ar s per year i n
pr i ze money f r omat hl et i c event s bef or e t hey enr ol l i n col l ege.
Ex. 2340 at 75. Ot her Di vi si on I r ecr ui t s, i n cont r ast , r emai n
bar r ed f r omr ecei vi ng any pr i ze money i n excess of t hei r act ual
and necessar y cost s of compet i ng i n an event . I d.
The amat eur i smpr ovi si on i n t he NCAA’ s cur r ent const i t ut i on
st at es t hat st udent - at hl et es “shal l be amat eur s i n an
i nt er col l egi at e spor t , and t hei r par t i ci pat i on shoul d be mot i vat ed
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page26 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pr i mar i l y by educat i on and by t he physi cal , ment al and soci al
benef i t s t o be der i ved. St udent par t i ci pat i on i n i nt er col l egi at e
at hl et i cs i s an avocat i on, and st udent - at hl et es shoul d be
pr ot ect ed f r omexpl oi t at i on by pr of essi onal and commer ci al
ent er pr i ses. ” Ex. 2340 at 18. Thi s concept i on of amat eur i sm
st ands i n st ar k cont r ast t o t he def i ni t i ons set f or t h i n t he
NCAA’ s ear l y byl aws. I ndeed, educat i on - - whi ch t he NCAA now
consi der s t he pr i mar y mot i vat i on f or par t i ci pat i ng i n
i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs - - was not even a r ecogni zed mot i vat i on
f or amat eur at hl et es dur i ng t he year s when t he NCAA pr ohi bi t ed
at hl et i c schol ar shi ps. The Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA’ s cur r ent
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on, whi ch cap at hl et i cs-
based f i nanci al ai d bel ow t he cost of at t endance, ar e not
j ust i f i ed by t he def i ni t i on of amat eur i smset f or t h i n i t s cur r ent
byl aws.
Al t hough t he NCAA sought t o est abl i sh t he i mpor t ance of t hese
r est r i ct i ons by asser t i ng t hat t hey i ncr ease consumer i nt er est i n
FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l , i t s evi dence suppor t i ng
t hi s asser t i on i s unper suasi ve. I t pr esent ed t est i mony f r oma
sur vey r esear ch exper t , Dr . J . Mi chael Denni s, who conduct ed a
sur vey of consumer at t i t udes concer ni ng col l ege spor t s i n 2013.
Dr . Denni s sur veyed 2, 455 r espondent s acr oss t he Uni t ed St at es and
obser ved t hat t hey gener al l y opposed t he i dea of payi ng col l ege
f oot bal l and basket bal l pl ayer s. Tr i al Tr . 2613: 24- 2614: 6. Hi s
sur vey cont ai ned an i ni t i al quest i on t hat appar ent l y af f ect ed many
r espondent s’ answer s t o t he sur vey’ s subst ant i ve quest i ons. The
i ni t i al open- ended quest i on asked r espondent s what t hey had hear d
about st udent - at hl et es bei ng pai d. I d. 2716: 15- 2717: 7; Exs. 2629,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page27 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2630. Pl ai nt i f f s’ sur vey exper t , Hal Por et , not ed t hat t he
“si ngl e most common r esponse” t o t hi s quest i on was t hat
r espondent s had hear d about st udent - at hl et es r ecei vi ng some f or m
of i l l egal or i l l i ci t payment s. Tr i al Tr . 2714: 2- : 20; Ex. 2629.
Many ot her r espondent s ment i oned payi ng st udent - at hl et es a sal ar y.
Tr i al Tr . 2714: 21- 2715: 2 ( Por et ) ; Ex. 2630. Al t hough Dr . Denni s
t est i f i ed t hat hi s r esul t s r emai ned t he same even af t er he r emoved
t hese speci f i c 274 r espondent s f r omhi s sampl e, t he f act t hat
t hese r espondent s expr essl y ment i oned i l l i ci t payment s or sal ar i es
at t he st ar t of t he sur vey st r ongl y suggest s t hat t he quest i on
pr i med r espondent s t o t hi nk about such i l l i ci t payment s when
answer i ng t he ot her sur vey quest i ons.
The NCAA r el i es heavi l y on t he f act t hat si xt y- ni ne per cent
of r espondent s t o Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey expr essed opposi t i on t o
payi ng st udent - at hl et es whi l e onl y t went y- ei ght per cent f avor ed
payi ng t hem. Tr i al Tr . 2604: 21- 2605: 2; Ex. 4045 at 19. These
r esponses, however , ar e not r el evant t o t he speci f i c i ssues r ai sed
her e and say l i t t l e about how consumer s woul d act ual l y behave i f
t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on wer e
l i f t ed. Al t hough Dr . Denni s t est i f i ed t hat t hese r esponses wer e
consi st ent wi t h t hose obser ved i n ot her pol l s and sur veys
concer ni ng col l ege spor t s, he acknowl edged t hat t hose ot her
st udi es may “var y i n t hei r qual i t y or t hei r met hodol ogy and t hei r
i mpl ement at i on. ” Tr i al Tr . 2641: 24- 2642: 11; Ex. 4045 at 20.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t does not f i nd t hese f i ndi ngs t o be cr edi bl e
evi dence t hat consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct woul d
decr ease i f st udent - at hl et es wer e per mi t t ed t o r ecei ve
compensat i on.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page28 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The most r el evant quest i ons i n Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey asked
r espondent s speci f i cal l y whet her t hey woul d be mor e or l ess l i kel y
t o wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end col l ege f oot bal l and basket bal l
games i f st udent - at hl et es wer e pai d. Thi r t y- ei ght per cent of al l
r espondent s st at ed t hey woul d be l ess l i kel y t o wat ch, l i st en t o,
or at t end games i f st udent - at hl et es wer e pai d $20, 000 per year .
Ex. 4045 at 23. For t y- seven per cent st at ed t hat t hey woul d be
l ess l i kel y t o wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end games i f st udent -
at hl et es wer e pai d $50, 000 per year . I d. I n cont r ast , onl y about
f our or f i ve per cent of r espondent s sai d t hat t hey woul d be mor e
l i kel y t o wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end games i f st udent - at hl et es
wer e pai d $20, 000 or $50, 000 per year . Tr i al Tr . 2651: 14- 2652: 8
( Denni s) . The r emai ni ng r espondent s st at ed t hat t hey woul d be no
mor e or l ess l i kel y t o wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end games i f
st udent - at hl et es wer e pai d t hese amount s. I d.
Whi l e t hese quest i ons ar e mor e ger mane t o consumer behavi or
t han t he sur vey’ s f i ndi ngs about r espondent s’ gener al opi ni ons
about compensat i ng st udent - at hl et es, t hey st i l l do not cr edi bl y
est abl i sh t hat t he speci f i c r ul es chal l enged her e cont r i but e t o
consumer demand. Dr . Denni s di d not ask r espondent s f or t hei r
opi ni ons about pr ovi di ng st udent - at hl et es wi t h a shar e of
l i censi ng r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r own names,
i mages, and l i kenesses. I d. 2669: 15- : 18 ( Denni s) ; 2709: 6- : 18
( Por et ) . Nor di d he ask t hei r opi ni ons about payi ng st udent -
at hl et es t he f ul l cost of at t endance, or any amount l ess t han
$20, 000 per year . Dr . Denni s al so f ai l ed t o ask r espondent s how
t hei r behavi or woul d be af f ect ed i f smal l or l ar ge amount s of
compensat i on f or t he use of st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page29 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l i kenesses wer e hel d i n t r ust f or t hemunt i l t hey l ef t school - -
one of Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr oposed al t er nat i ves her e. I d. 2686: 18- 2687: 3
( Denni s) ; 2711: 21- 2712: 9, 2718: 19- 2714: 12 ( Por et ) .
I n addi t i on, numer ous r espondent s pr ovi ded i nt er nal l y
i nconsi st ent r esponses t o di f f er ent sur vey quest i ons. Ei ght y-
t hr ee of t he r espondent s who sai d t hat t hey f avor ed payi ng
st udent - at hl et es al so st at ed t hat t hey woul d be l ess l i kel y t o
wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end games i f st udent - at hl et es wer e pai d.
I d. 2729: 25- 2730: 9. Anot her t hi r t y- t hr ee r espondent s st at ed t hat
t hey opposed payi ng st udent - at hl et es but sai d t hat t hey woul d be
mor e l i kel y t o wat ch, l i st en t o, or at t end games i f st udent -
at hl et es wer e pai d. I d. These r esponses suggest t hat some
r espondent s di d not under st and or di d not t ake ser i ousl y some of
t he sur vey quest i ons and i l l ust r at e t he l i mi t s of Dr . Denni s’ s
concl usi ons.
Based on t hese f l aws i n Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey, t he Cour t f i nds
t hat i t does not pr ovi de cr edi bl e evi dence t hat demand f or t he
NCAA’ s pr oduct woul d decr ease i f st udent - at hl et es wer e per mi t t ed,
under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, t o r ecei ve a l i mi t ed shar e of t he
r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r own names, i mages, and
l i kenesses. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s di d not pr ovi de t hei r own opi ni on
sur vey t o count er Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey, t he Cour t not es t hat t he
NCAA pr oduced Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey as a r ebut t al r epor t , whi ch may
have l i mi t ed Pl ai nt i f f s’ oppor t uni t y t o commi ssi on such a sur vey.
What ’ s mor e, Dr . Denni s hi msel f acknowl edged t hat i t woul d be
ext r emel y di f f i cul t t o ask t he speci f i c ki nds of det ai l ed sur vey
quest i ons most r el evant t o t hi s case - - speci f i cal l y, t hose
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page30 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r el at i ng t o var yi ng amount s and met hods of payment f or t he use of
st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed ot her evi dence i l l ust r at i ng t he l i mi t s
of opi ni on sur veys as pr edi ct or s of consumer demand f or spor t s-
ent er t ai nment pr oduct s. Thei r exper t on spor t s management , Dr .
Dani el Rascher , descr i bed how opi ni on sur veys conduct ed bet ween
1970 and t he pr esent consi st ent l y showed t hat t he publ i c
over whel mi ngl y opposed r i si ng basebal l pl ayer sal ar i es but
cont i nued t o wat ch, l i st en t o, and at t end Maj or League Basebal l
games at a hi gh r at e even as pl ayer sal ar i es r ose dur i ng t hi s
per i od. I d. 901: 12- 903: 24; Ex. 2549. He speci f i cal l y not ed t hat
many peopl e f el t t hat t he r emoval of t he r eser ve cl ause i n t he
1970s - - whi ch ul t i mat el y enabl ed pl ayer s t o become f r ee agent s,
t hus l eadi ng t o hi gher sal ar i es - - woul d under mi ne t he popul ar i t y
of pr of essi onal basebal l . However , despi t e t hese pr edi ct i ons and
f ans’ st at ed opposi t i on t o r i si ng sal ar i es, Maj or League Basebal l
r evenues cont i nued t o r i se af t er t he r emoval of t he r eser ve
cl ause. I d. 903: 13- : 16 ( “So even t hough t he f ans i n pol l s say,
‘ Hey, we don’ t want t he pl ayer s t o make so much money, ’ ul t i mat el y
t hey cont i nue t o wat ch on t el evi si on, you know, buy t i cket s,
concessi ons, t he whol e t hi ng. ” ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks added) ) .
Dr . Rascher hi ghl i ght ed anot her sur vey showi ng publ i c opposi t i on
t o t he deci si on of t he I nt er nat i onal Ol ympi c Commi t t ee ( I OC) t o
per mi t pr of essi onal at hl et es t o compet e i n t he Ol ympi cs, even as
consumer i nt er est i n t he Ol ympi cs r emai ned hi gh and r evenues
gener at ed by t he event cont i nued t o r i se dur i ng t he same per i od.
I d. 904: 22- 905: 18; see al so i d. 226: 15- 227: 17 ( t est i mony of Dr .
Nol l t hat t he Ol ympi cs ar e “much mor e popul ar now t han t hey wer e
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page31 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[ when] amat eur ”) . I n addi t i on t o t he Ol ympi cs, Dr . Rascher al so
poi nt ed t o var i ous ot her f or mer l y amat eur spor t s associ at i ons - -
such as t hose gover ni ng r ugby and t enni s - - whose event s gr ew i n
popul ar i t y af t er t hey began t o al l ow t hei r at hl et es t o accept
payment s. I d. 903: 25- 904: 21.
Al t hough t he NCAA pr esent ed evi dence showi ng t hat t he Ni el sen
r at i ngs f or pr of essi onal basebal l and t he Ol ympi cs have decl i ned
si nce t he 1970s and 1980s, t hi s does not cast doubt on Dr .
Rascher ’ s f i ndi ngs. As Dr . Rascher expl ai ned, Ni el sen r at i ngs
measur e t he shar e of t he popul at i on wat chi ng a par t i cul ar event ,
not t he r aw number of vi ewer s. I d. 986: 7- : 10, 1019: 20- 1020: 9. As
a r esul t , Ni el sen r at i ngs have decl i ned f or vi r t ual l y ever y
t el evi si on pr ogr amor spor t i ng event over t he past f ew decades as
t he vi ewi ng popul at i on and number of t el evi si on channel s has
gr own. I d. Even a si ngl e event as popul ar as t he Super Bowl ,
whi ch has seen a dr amat i c i ncr ease i n t he r aw number of vi ewer s
over t he year s, has exper i enced f l at Ni el sen r at i ngs f or sever al
decades. I d. 1024: 18- 1026: 7, 1025: 6- : 15.
Ot her hi st or i cal evi dence suggest s t hat t he NCAA’ s
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on have not cont r i but ed
si gni f i cant l y t o t he popul ar i t y of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l . The NCAA’ s f or mer pr esi dent , t he l at e Wal t er Byer s,
t est i f i ed dur i ng hi s 2007 deposi t i on, f or i nst ance, t hat t he
NCAA’ s deci si on t o r emove i nci dent al expenses f r omt he gr ant - i n-
ai d cover age i n 1975 was not mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o i ncr ease
consumer demand f or i t s pr oduct . Byer s Depo. 21: 21- 22: 14,
24: 6- : 17. I n f act , he speci f i cal l y not ed t hat NCAA spor t s
exper i enced a t r emendous gr owt h i n popul ar i t y dur i ng t he per i od
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page32 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
bet ween 1956 and 1975 when gr ant s- i n- ai d st i l l cover ed t he f ul l
cost of at t endance. I d. 25: 15- 26: 8.
7
None of t he evi dence i n t he
t r i al r ecor d suggest s t hat t he r emoval of i nci dent al expenses or
any ot her changes t o t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t had an i mpact on t he
popul ar i t y of col l ege spor t s dur i ng t hi s t i me.
Thus, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on ar e not t he dr i vi ng f or ce behi nd
consumer demand f or FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l - r el at ed
pr oduct s. Rat her , t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al suggest s t hat
consumer s ar e i nt er est ed i n col l ege spor t s f or ot her r easons. Mr .
Pi l son t est i f i ed, f or i nst ance, t hat t he popul ar i t y of col l ege
spor t s i s dr i ven by f eel i ngs of “l oyal t y t o t he school , ” whi ch ar e
shar ed by bot h al umni and peopl e “who l i ve i n t he r egi on or t he
conf er ence. ” Tr i al Tr . 757: 20- 758: 13. Si mi l ar l y, Chr i st i ne
Pl onsky, an associ at e at hl et i cs di r ect or at t he Uni ver si t y of
Texas ( UT) , t est i f i ed t hat UT spor t s woul d r emai n popul ar as l ong
as t hey had “anyt hi ng i n our wor l d t o do wi t h t he Uni ver si t y of
Texas. ” I d. 1414: 23- : 24; see al so i d. 1376: 13 ( “Longhor ns ar e
pr et t y l oyal . ”) . Dr . Emmer t hi msel f not ed t hat much of t he
popul ar i t y of t he NCAA’ s annual men’ s basket bal l t our nament st ems
f r omt he f act t hat school s f r omal l over t he count r y par t i ci pat e
“so t he f an base has an oppor t uni t y t o cheer f or someone f r om
t hei r r egi on of t he count r y. ” I d. 1757: 1- : 9; see al so i d. ( “I t ’ s
become ext r emel y popul ar at l east i n par t because t her e’ s someone

7
The NCAA’ s obj ect i ons t o t hi s t est i mony under Feder al Rul es of
Evi dence 602 and 701 ar e over r ul ed. Wal t er Byer s was t he execut i ve
di r ect or of t he NCAA bet ween 1956 and 1975, St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶ 23,
and t her ef or e had per sonal knowl edge of t he popul ar i t y of NCAA spor t s
dur i ng t hi s per i od.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page33 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


34

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f r omyour nei ghbor hood l i kel y t o be i n t he t our nament . ”) . He
t est i f i ed t hat col l ege bowl games have t he same appeal . I d.
1757: 16- : 19. Thi s evi dence demonst r at es t hat t he NCAA’ s
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e pay i s not t he dr i vi ng f or ce
behi nd consumer i nt er est i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l . Thus, whi l e consumer pr ef er ences mi ght j ust i f y
cer t ai n l i mi t ed r est r ai nt s on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on, t hey
do not j ust i f y t he r i gi d r est r i ct i ons chal l enged i n t hi s case.

B. Compet i t i ve Bal ance
The NCAA asser t s t hat i t s chal l enged r est r ai nt s ar e
r easonabl e and pr ocompet i t i ve because t hey ar e needed t o mai nt ai n
t he cur r ent l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance among FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams. I t f ur t her asser t s t hat i t must
mai nt ai n t hi s par t i cul ar l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance i n or der t o
sust ai n consumer demand f or i t s pr oduct .
The Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on do not pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance.
As Dr . Nol l t est i f i ed, si nce t he 1970s, numer ous spor t s economi st s
have st udi ed t he NCAA’ s amat eur i smr ul es and near l y al l have
concl uded t hat t he r ul es have no di scer ni bl e ef f ect on t he l evel
of compet i t i ve bal ance. Tr i al Tr . 229: 8- 234: 2. He not ed t hat one
of t he mor e r ecent ar t i cl es addr essi ng t he subj ect , a 2007 st udy
by economi st J i mPeach publ i shed i n t he Soci al Sci ence J our nal ,
f ound t hat t her e i s “‘ l i t t l e evi dence t hat t he NCAA r ul es and
r egul at i ons have pr omot ed compet i t i ve bal ance i n col l ege at hl et i cs
and no a pr i or i r eason t o t hi nk t hat el i mi nat i ng t he r ul es woul d
change t he compet i t i ve bal ance si t uat i on. ’ ” I d. 232: 22- 233: 1
( quot i ng Peach ar t i cl e) . Dr . Rascher r eached t he same concl usi on
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page34 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
based on hi s r evi ew of t he economi cs l i t er at ur e. I d. 920: 9-
922: 16. He speci f i cal l y ci t ed one of t he l eadi ng t ext books i n t he
f i el d of spor t s economi cs, by Rod For t , whi ch f ound t hat t he
NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e pay do not appear t o have
any i mpact on compet i t i ve bal ance. I d. 921: 10- : 18.
The academi c consensus on t hi s i ssue i s not sur pr i si ng gi ven
t hat many of t he NCAA’ s ot her r ul es and pr act i ces suggest t hat t he
associ at i on i s unconcer ned wi t h achi evi ng compet i t i ve bal ance.
Sever al wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat t he r est r i ct i ons on st udent -
at hl et e compensat i on l ead many school s si mpl y t o spend l ar ger
por t i ons of t hei r at hl et i c budget s on coachi ng, r ecr ui t i ng, and
t r ai ni ng f aci l i t i es. I d. 296: 14- 297: 18 ( Nol l ) ; 865: 11- 866: 2,
910: 2- 911: 7 ( Rascher ) . I n t he maj or conf er ences, f or i nst ance,
t he aver age sal ar y f or a head f oot bal l coach exceeds $1. 5 mi l l i on.
I d. 1151: 20- 1152: 14 ( St aur owsky) . The f act t hat hi gh- r evenue
school s ar e abl e t o spend f r eel y i n t hese ot her ar eas cancel s out
what ever l evel i ng ef f ect t he r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e pay
mi ght ot her wi se have. The NCAA does not do anyt hi ng t o r ei n i n
spendi ng by t he hi gh- r evenue school s or mi ni mi ze exi st i ng
di spar i t i es i n r evenue and r ecr ui t i ng. I n f act , Dr . Emmer t
speci f i cal l y conceded t hat i t i s “not t he mi ssi on of t he
associ at i on t o . . . t r y and t ake away t he advant ages of a
uni ver si t y t hat ’ s made a si gni f i cant commi t ment t o f aci l i t i es and
t r adi t i on and al l of t he t hi ngs t hat go al ong wi t h bui l di ng a
pr ogr am. ” Tr i al Tr . 1774: 23- 1775: 6.
Thi s same sent i ment under l i es t he NCAA’ s unequal r evenue
di st r i but i on f or mul a, whi ch r ewar ds t he school s and conf er ences
t hat al r eady have t he l ar gest at hl et i c budget s. Revenues
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page35 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gener at ed f r omt he NCAA’ s annual Di vi si on I men’ s basket bal l
t our nament ar e di st r i but ed t o t he conf er ences based on how t hei r
member school s per f or med i n t he t our nament i n r ecent year s.
Docket No. 207, St i p. Re: Br oadcast Money, at ¶ 10. As a r esul t ,
t he maj or conf er ences - - and t he hi ghest r evenue school s - -
t ypi cal l y r ecei ve t he gr eat est payout s, whi ch hi nder s, r at her t han
pr omot es, compet i t i ve bal ance.
The onl y quant i t at i ve evi dence t hat t he NCAA pr esent ed
r el at ed t o compet i t i ve bal ance i s a cur sor y st at i st i cal anal ysi s
conduct ed by Dr . Rubi nf el d compar i ng t he l evel s of compet i t i ve
bal ance i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t o t he l evel s i n
t he NFL and NBA. Not hi ng i n Dr . Rubi nf el d’ s anal ysi s suggest s
t hat t he NFL and NBA - - each of whi ch has f ewer t eams t han
Di vi si on I - - pr ovi de an appr opr i at e basel i ne f or compar i ng
compet i t i ve bal ance. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, hi s anal ysi s does not
suggest t hat t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es act ual l y pr oduce t he
l evel s of compet i t i ve bal ance he obser ved.
Even i f t he NCAA had pr esent ed some evi dence of a causal
connect i on bet ween i t s chal l enged r ul es and i t s cur r ent l evel of
compet i t i ve bal ance, i t has not shown t hat t he cur r ent l evel of
compet i t i ve bal ance i s necessar y t o mai nt ai n i t s cur r ent l evel of
consumer demand. Tr i al Tr . 228: 20- 229: 2 ( Nol l ) . I t i s undi sput ed
t hat t he i deal l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance f or a spor t s l eague i s
somewher e bet ween per f ect compet i t i ve bal ance ( wher e ever y t eam
has an equal chance of wi nni ng ever y game) and per f ect i mbal ance
( wher e ever y game has a pr edi ct abl e out come) . I d. 453: 8- : 22
( Nol l ) ; 3127: 2- : 21 ( Rubi nf el d) . The NCAA has not even at t empt ed
t o i dent i f y t he speci f i c l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance bet ween
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page36 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t hose ext r emes t hat i s i deal or necessar y t o sust ai n i t s cur r ent
popul ar i t y. Gi ven t he l ack of such evi dence i n t he r ecor d, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es ar e not needed t o
achi eve a l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance necessar y, or even l i kel y,
t o mai nt ai n cur r ent l evel s of consumer demand f or FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l .
C. I nt egr at i on of Academi cs and At hl et i cs
The NCAA cont ends t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on ar e r easonabl e and pr ocompet i t i ve because t hey
pr omot e t he i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs. I n
par t i cul ar , i t asser t s t hat i t s chal l enged r ul es ensur e t hat
st udent - at hl et es ar e abl e t o obt ai n al l of t he educat i onal
benef i t s t hat t hei r school s pr ovi de and par t i ci pat e i n t hei r
school s’ academi c communi t i es. Accor di ng t o t he NCAA, t he
i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs i ncr eases t he qual i t y of
t he educat i onal ser vi ces i t s member school s pr ovi de t o st udent -
at hl et es i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have
i dent i f i ed.
For suppor t , t he NCAA r el i es on evi dence showi ng t hat
st udent - at hl et es r ecei ve bot h shor t - t er mand l ong- t er mbenef i t s
f r ombei ng st udent - at hl et es. One of i t s exper t s, Dr . J ames
Heckman, t est i f i ed t hat par t i ci pat i on i n i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs
l eads t o bet t er academi c and l abor mar ket out comes f or many
st udent - at hl et es as compar ed t o ot her member s of t hei r
soci oeconomi c gr oups. Tr i al Tr . 1493: 13- 1494: 25. Dr . Heckman
f ound t hat t hese benef i t s ar e par t i cul ar l y pr onounced f or st udent -
at hl et es f r omdi sadvant aged backgr ounds. I d. The NCAA pr esent ed
addi t i onal evi dence, i ncl udi ng i t s own dat a on st udent - at hl et e
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page37 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gr aduat i on r at es, t o show t hat st udent - at hl et es enj oy subst ant i al
benef i t s f r ompar t i ci pat i ng i n i nt er col l egi at e at hl et i cs.
However , none of t hi s dat a nor any of Dr . Heckman’ s obser vat i ons
suggest s t hat st udent - at hl et es benef i t speci f i cal l y f r omt he
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on t hat ar e chal l enged
i n t hi s case. To t he cont r ar y, Dr . Heckman speci f i cal l y t est i f i ed
t hat t he l ong- t er meducat i onal and academi c benef i t s t hat st udent -
at hl et es enj oy st emf r omt hei r i ncr eased access t o f i nanci al ai d,
t ut or i ng, academi c suppor t , ment or shi p, st r uct ur ed schedul es, and
ot her educat i onal ser vi ces t hat ar e unr el at ed t o t he chal l enged
r ul es i n t hi s case. I d. 1512: 23- 1516: 17. FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s of f er most of t hese ser vi ces t o
t hei r st udent - at hl et es i ndependent l y and ar e not compel l ed t o do
so by t he NCAA, par t i cul ar l y not by t he chal l enged r ul es.
The same i s t r ue of t he var i ous ot her benef i t s of i nt egr at i on
t hat t he NCAA has i dent i f i ed. For i nst ance, t he benef i t s t hat
st udent - at hl et es der i ve f r omi nt er act i ng wi t h f acul t y and non-
st udent - at hl et es on campus ar e achi eved most l y t hr ough t he NCAA’ s
r ul es r equi r i ng st udent - at hl et es t o at t end cl ass and meet cer t ai n
academi c r equi r ement s. They ar e al so achi eved t hr ough t he
associ at i on’ s r ul es pr ohi bi t i ng school s f r omcr eat i ng dor ms sol el y
f or st udent - at hl et es or f r omr equi r i ng st udent - at hl et es t o
pr act i ce mor e t han a cer t ai n number of hour s each week. None of
t hese r ul es i s chal l enged her e.
The onl y evi dence t hat t he NCAA has pr esent ed t hat suggest s
t hat i t s chal l enged r ul es mi ght be necessar y t o pr omot e t he
i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs i s t he t est i mony of
uni ver si t y admi ni st r at or s, who asser t ed t hat payi ng st udent -
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page38 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at hl et es l ar ge sums of money woul d pot ent i al l y “cr eat e a wedge”
bet ween st udent - at hl et es and ot her s on campus. I d. 1591: 2- : 20
( Past i des) . These admi ni st r at or s not ed t hat , dependi ng on how
much compensat i on was ul t i mat el y awar ded, some st udent - at hl et es
mi ght r ecei ve mor e money f r omt he school t han t hei r pr of essor s.
St udent - at hl et es mi ght al so be i ncl i ned t o separ at e t hemsel ves
f r omt he br oader campus communi t y by l i vi ng and soci al i zi ng of f
campus.
I t i s not cl ear t hat any of t he pot ent i al pr obl ems i dent i f i ed
by t he NCAA’ s wi t nesses woul d be uni que t o st udent - at hl et es. I n
f act , when t he Cour t asked Dr . Emmer t whet her ot her weal t hy
st udent s - - such as t hose who come f r omr i ch f ami l i es or st ar t
successf ul busi nesses dur i ng school - - r ai se al l of t he same
pr obl ems f or campus r el at i ons, he r epl i ed t hat t hey di d. I d.
1790: 18- : 22. I t i s al so not cl ear why payi ng st udent - at hl et es
woul d be any mor e pr obl emat i c f or campus r el at i ons t han payi ng
ot her st udent s who pr ovi de ser vi ces t o t he uni ver si t y, such as
member s of t he st udent gover nment or school newspaper .
Nonet hel ess, t he Cour t f i nds t hat cer t ai n l i mi t ed r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on may hel p t o i nt egr at e st udent -
at hl et es i nt o t he academi c communi t i es of t hei r school s, whi ch may
i n t ur n i mpr ove t he school s’ col l ege educat i on pr oduct .
Pl ai nt i f f s have pr oduced anecdot al and st at i st i cal evi dence
suggest i ng t hat t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r ul es do not ser ve t o i nt egr at e
FBS f oot bal l pl ayer s or Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s i nt o t he
academi c communi t i es at t hei r school s. For exampl e, Ed O’ Bannon,
t he f or mer UCLA basket bal l st ar , t est i f i ed t hat he f el t l i ke “an
at hl et e masquer adi ng as a st udent ” dur i ng hi s col l ege year s. I d.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page39 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


40

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33: 11- : 14. Pl ai nt i f f s al so pr esent ed t est i mony f r omDr . El l en
St aur owsky, a spor t s management pr of essor , who st udi ed t he
exper i ences of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s and
concl uded t hat t he t i me demands of t hei r at hl et i c obl i gat i ons
pr event many of t hemf r omachi evi ng si gni f i cant academi c success.
I d. 1175: 12- 1176: 21. Some of t hi s evi dence conf l i ct s wi t h t he
NCAA’ s dat a on st udent - at hl et e gr aduat i on r at es and Dr . Heckman’ s
obser vat i ons sur r oundi ng academi c out comes f or st udent - at hl et es.
However , t he Cour t need not r esol ve t hese f act ual di sput es
because, r egar dl ess of how t hey ar e r esol ved, t he r est r ai nt s on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on chal l enged i n t hi s case gener al l y do
not ser ve t o enhance academi c out comes f or st udent - at hl et es.
D. I ncr eased Out put
The NCAA asser t s t hat i t s chal l enged r ul es ar e r easonabl e and
pr ocompet i t i ve because t hey enabl e i t t o i ncr ease t he number of
oppor t uni t i es avai l abl e t o school s and st udent - at hl et es t o
par t i ci pat e i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l , whi ch
ul t i mat el y i ncr eases t he number of games t hat can be pl ayed. I t
r ef er s t o t hi s i ncr eased number of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
school s, st udent - at hl et es, and games as i ncr eased out put .
The Cour t f i nds t hat t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on st udent -
at hl et e compensat i on do not hi ng t o i ncr ease t hi s out put . The
number of school s par t i ci pat i ng i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l has i ncr eased st eadi l y over t i me and cont i nues t o
i ncr ease t oday. St i p. Undi sput ed Fact s ¶¶ 42- 49. Thi s i s because
par t i ci pat i on i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t ypi cal l y
r ai ses a school ’ s pr of i l e and l eads t o i ncr eased at hl et i cs- based
r evenue. Tr i al Tr . 872: 1- 874: 20 ( Rascher ) . Al t hough Dr . Emmer t
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page40 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


41

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and ot her NCAA and conf er ence of f i ci al s say t hat t hi s t r end i s not
t he r esul t of i ncr eased Di vi si on I r evenues but , r at her , because
of school s’ phi l osophi cal commi t ment t o amat eur i sm, t hi s t heor y i s
i mpl ausi bl e. I d. 1783: 2- : 14; 2080: 11- : 23 ( Del any) ; 2418: 5- : 25
( Sankey) ; 3188: 25- 3189: 17 ( Lewi s) . School s i n some of t he maj or
conf er ences have speci f i cal l y under t aken ef f or t s t o change t he
NCAA’ s exi st i ng schol ar shi p r ul es, whi ch suggest s t hat t he r ul es
ar e not t he r eason t hat t hey choose t o par t i ci pat e i n Di vi si on I .
Ex. 2095 at 4 ( 2013 pr esent at i on by r epr esent at i ves of t he f i ve
maj or conf er ences r equest i ng aut onomy t o r ai se exi st i ng
schol ar shi p l i mi t s) ; Ex. 2527 at 2 ( 2014 l et t er f r omPac 12 ur gi ng
ot her maj or conf er ences t o suppor t r ul e changes, i ncl udi ng r ai si ng
t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t ) . What ’ s mor e, t her e i s no evi dence t o
suggest t hat any school s j oi ned Di vi si on I or i gi nal l y because of
i t s amat eur i smr ul es. These school s had numer ous ot her opt i ons t o
par t i ci pat e i n col l egi at e spor t s associ at i ons t hat r est r i ct
compensat i on f or st udent - at hl et es, i ncl udi ng t he NCAA’ s l ower
di vi si ons and t he NAI A. I ndeed, school s i n FCS, Di vi si on I I , and
Di vi si on I I I ar e bound by t he same amat eur i smpr ovi si ons of t he
NCAA’ s const i t ut i on as t he school s i n Di vi si on I . The r eal
di f f er ence bet ween school s i n Di vi si on I and school s i n ot her
di vi si ons and at hl et i cs associ at i ons, as expl ai ned above, i s t he
amount of r esour ces t hat Di vi si on I school s commi t t o at hl et i cs.
Thus, whi l e t her e may be t angi bl e di f f er ences bet ween Di vi si on I
school s and ot her school s t hat par t i ci pat e i n i nt er col l egi at e
spor t s, t hese di f f er ences ar e f i nanci al , not phi l osophi cal .
For t hi s r eason, t he NCAA’ s asser t i on t hat school s woul d
l eave FBS and Di vi si on I f or f i nanci al r easons i f t he chal l enged
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page41 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


42

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r est r ai nt s wer e r emoved i s not cr edi bl e. The t est i mony of Dr .
Emmer t and var i ous ot her at hl et i cs admi ni st r at or s t hat most
Di vi si on I at hl et i c pr ogr ams oper at e at a l oss and woul d not
r emai n i n Di vi si on I i f t he chal l enged r ul es wer e r emoved
conf l i ct s wi t h t he cl ear wei ght of t he evi dence. Tr i al Tr .
1784: 6- : 18 ( Emmer t ) ; 3188: 25- 3189: 3 ( Lewi s) . I ndeed, some of t he
NCAA’ s own wi t nesses under mi ned t hi s cl ai m. Dr . Har r i s Past i des,
t he pr esi dent of t he Uni ver si t y of Sout h Car ol i na, f or i nst ance,
speci f i cal l y t est i f i ed t hat hi s school “woul d pr obabl y cont i nue t o
compet e i n f oot bal l and men’ s basket bal l ” i f t he chal l enged
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on wer e l i f t ed. I d.
1598: 23- : 25. The commi ssi oner of Conf er ence USA, Br i t t on
Banowsky, si mi l ar l y expr essed skept i ci smt hat uni ver si t i es woul d
l eave Di vi si on I i f t he r est r i ct i ons wer e r emoved. I d. 2371: 25-
2372: 20. Ms. Pl onsky al so cast doubt on Dr . Emmer t ’ s asser t i on
t hat most Di vi si on I spor t s pr ogr ams oper at e at a l oss by not i ng
t hat UT’ s at hl et i cs depar t ment i s not onl y sel f - sust ai ni ng but , i n
f act , gener at es sur pl us r evenue t hat f unds ot her uni ver si t y
pr ogr ams and expenses. I d. 1385: 12- : 18, 1465: 20- 1466: 10. She
i ndi cat ed t hat UT was not abnor mal i n t hi s r egar d and t hat t he
“vast pr opor t i on” of at hl et i cs pr ogr ams acr oss t he count r y ar e
oper at ed by “sel f - sour ced, sel f - gener at ed” r evenues. I d. 1467: 22-
1468: 11. Mr . Lewi s hi msel f acknowl edged t hat t he NCAA’ s r evenues,
most of whi ch ar e di st r i but ed back t o i t s member school s and
conf er ences, have i ncr eased i n r ecent year s. I d. 3195: 19- 3196: 3.
Dr . Rascher of f er ed si mi l ar t est i mony and document ed t hat
par t i ci pat i on i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l gener at es
si gni f i cant r evenue and i s hi ghl y pr of i t abl e f or most school s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page42 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


43

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I d. 830: 4- 831: 15. These r evenues ar e what enabl e t hemt o spend so
much on coaches and t r ai ni ng f aci l i t i es. Dr . Rascher al so not ed
t hat most FBS f oot bal l school s used t o spend even mor e on t hei r
st udent - at hl et es bef or e t he NCAA l ower ed i t s t eamschol ar shi p cap
f r om105 t o ei ght y- f i ve. I d. 873: 20- 874: 20. Fur t her mor e, Dr .
Nol l t est i f i ed t hat some of t he school s t hat cur r ent l y compet e i n
FBS and Di vi si on I do so wi t hout pr ovi di ng t he maxi mumamount of
f i nanci al ai d per mi t t ed under NCAA r ul es.
Based on t hi s evi dence, t he Cour t f i nds t hat school s woul d
not exi t FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l i f t hey wer e
per mi t t ed t o pay t hei r st udent - at hl et es a l i mi t ed amount of
compensat i on beyond t he val ue of t hei r schol ar shi ps. The NCAA’ s
chal l enged r est r i ct i ons on compensat i on do not i ncr ease t he number
of oppor t uni t i es f or school s or st udent - at hl et es t o par t i ci pat e i n
Di vi si on I .
V. Al t er nat i ves t o t he Rest r ai nt
Pl ai nt i f f s have pr oposed t hr ee modi f i cat i ons t o t he NCAA’ s
chal l enged r ul es whi ch, t hey cont end, woul d al l ow t he NCAA t o
achi eve t he pur poses of i t s chal l enged r ul es i n a l ess r est r i ct i ve
manner : ( 1) r ai se t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t t o al l ow school s t o awar d
st i pends, der i ved f r omspeci f i ed sour ces of l i censi ng r evenue, t o
st udent - at hl et es; ( 2) al l ow school s t o deposi t a shar e of
l i censi ng r evenue i nt o a t r ust f und f or st udent - at hl et es whi ch
coul d be pai d af t er t he st udent - at hl et es gr aduat e or l eave school
f or ot her r easons; or ( 3) per mi t st udent - at hl et es t o r ecei ve
l i mi t ed compensat i on f or t hi r d- par t y endor sement s appr oved by
t hei r school s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page43 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


44

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s’ f i r st pr oposed
al t er nat i ve - - al l owi ng school s t o awar d st i pends - - woul d l i mi t
t he ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s of t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r est r ai nt
wi t hout i mpedi ng t he NCAA’ s ef f or t s t o achi eve i t s st at ed
pur poses, pr ovi ded t hat t he st i pends do not exceed t he cost of
at t endance as t hat t er mi s def i ned i n t he NCAA’ s byl aws. A
st i pend capped at t he cost of at t endance woul d not vi ol at e t he
NCAA’ s own def i ni t i on of amat eur i smbecause i t woul d onl y cover
educat i onal expenses. I ndeed, as not ed above, t he NCAA’ s member
school s used t o pr ovi de st udent - at hl et es wi t h si mi l ar st i pends
bef or e t he NCAA l ower ed i t s cap on gr ant s- i n- ai d. Byer s Depo.
21: 21- 22: 14, 24: 6- : 17. Dr . Emmer t t est i f i ed t hat r ai si ng t he
gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t t o cover t he f ul l cost of at t endance woul d not
vi ol at e t he NCAA’ s amat eur i smr ul es. Tr i al Tr . 1742: 15- : 18. Gr eg
Sankey, t he execut i ve associ at e commi ssi oner and chi ef oper at i ng
of f i cer of t he SEC, expr essed t he same vi ew dur i ng hi s t est i mony,
as di d Dr . Rubi nf el d. I d. 2430: 23- : 24 ( Sankey) ; 3117: 2- : 4
( Rubi nf el d) .
None of t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al suggest s t hat
consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct woul d decr ease i f school s
wer e per mi t t ed t o pr ovi de such st i pends t o st udent - at hl et es once
agai n. Nor does any of t he evi dence suggest t hat pr ovi di ng such
st i pends woul d hi nder any school ’ s ef f or t s t o educat e i t s st udent -
at hl et es or i nt egr at e t hemi nt o t he academi c communi t y on campus.
I f anyt hi ng, pr ovi di ng st udent - at hl et es wi t h such st i pends woul d
f aci l i t at e t hei r i nt egr at i on i nt o academi c l i f e by r emovi ng some
of t he educat i onal expenses t hat t hey woul d ot her wi se have t o
bear , such as school suppl i es, whi ch ar e not cover ed by a f ul l
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page44 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


45

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gr ant - i n- ai d. Ex. 2340 at 207. Rai si ng t he gr ant - i n- ai d cap t o
al l ow f or such st i pends al so woul d not have any ef f ect on t he
NCAA’ s ef f or t s t o achi eve compet i t i ve bal ance or i ncr ease i t s
out put because, as expl ai ned above, i t s exi st i ng r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on do not advance t hese goal s.
Pl ai nt i f f s’ second pr oposed l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve - -
al l owi ng school s t o hol d payment s i n t r ust f or st udent - at hl et es - -
woul d l i kewi se enabl e t he NCAA t o achi eve i t s goal s i n a l ess
r est r i ct i ve manner , pr ovi ded t he compensat i on was l i mi t ed and
di st r i but ed equal l y among t eammember s. The NCAA’ s own wi t ness,
Mr . Pi l son, t est i f i ed t hat he woul d not be t r oubl ed i f school s
wer e al l owed t o make f i ve t housand dol l ar payment s t o t hei r
st udent - at hl et es and t hat hi s gener al concer ns about payi ng
st udent - at hl et es woul d be par t i al l y assuaged i f t he payment s wer e
hel d i n t r ust . Tr i al Tr . 770: 25- 771: 18. St anf or d’ s at hl et i c
di r ect or , Ber nar d Mui r , si mi l ar l y acknowl edged t hat hi s concer ns
about payi ng st udent - at hl et es var i ed dependi ng on t he si ze of t he
payment s t hat t hey woul d r ecei ve. I d. 254: 3- : 18 ( “Wher e I set t he
dol l ar l i mi t , you know, t hat var i es, but i t does concer n me when
we’ r e t al ki ng about si x f i gur es, seven f i gur es i n some cases. ”) .
Thi s t est i mony i s consi st ent wi t h Dr . Denni s’ s gener al obser vat i on
t hat , i f t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e pay wer e
r emoved, t he popul ar i t y of col l ege spor t s woul d l i kel y depend on
t he si ze of payment s awar ded t o st udent - at hl et es. The Cour t
t her ef or e f i nds t hat per mi t t i ng school s t o make l i mi t ed payment s
t o st udent - at hl et es above t he cost of at t endance woul d not har m
consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct - - par t i cul ar l y i f t he
st udent - at hl et es wer e not pai d mor e or l ess based on t hei r
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page45 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


46

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at hl et i c abi l i t y or t he qual i t y of t hei r per f or mances and t he
payment s wer e der i ved onl y f r omr evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of
t hei r own names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
Hol di ng t hese l i mi t ed and equal shar es of l i censi ng r evenue
i n t r ust unt i l af t er st udent - at hl et es l eave school woul d f ur t her
mi ni mi ze any pot ent i al i mpact on consumer demand. I ndeed, f or mer
st udent - at hl et es ar e al r eady per mi t t ed t o r ecei ve compensat i on f or
t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n game r e-
br oadcast s and ot her ar chi val f oot age of t hei r col l ege
per f or mances as l ong as t hey ent er i nt o such agr eement s af t er t hey
l eave school . The popul ar i t y of col l ege spor t s woul d not suf f er
i f cur r ent and f ut ur e st udent - at hl et es wer e gi ven t he oppor t uni t y
t o r ecei ve compensat i on f r omt hei r school s af t er t hey l eave
col l ege. Li kewi se, hol di ng compensat i on i n t r ust f or st udent -
at hl et es whi l e t hey ar e enr ol l ed woul d not er ect any new bar r i er s
t o school s’ ef f or t s t o educat e st udent - at hl et es or i nt egr at e t hem
i nt o t hei r school s’ academi c communi t i es. The Cour t t her ef or e
f i nds t hat consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct s woul d not
change i f school s wer e al l owed t o of f er and st udent - at hl et es on
FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams wer e al l owed, af t er
l eavi ng col l ege, t o r ecei ve l i mi t ed and equal shar es of l i censi ng
r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r names, i mages, and
l i kenesses dur i ng col l ege.
Al t hough Dr s. Emmer t and Rubi nf el d suggest ed t hat st udent -
at hl et es coul d pot ent i al l y monet i ze t hese f ut ur e ear ni ngs whi l e
t hey ar e st i l l i n school by t aki ng out l oans agai nst t he t r ust ,
t he NCAA coul d easi l y pr ohi bi t such bor r owi ng, j ust as i t
cur r ent l y pr ohi bi t s st udent - at hl et es f r ombor r owi ng agai nst t hei r
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page46 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


47

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f ut ur e ear ni ngs as pr of essi onal at hl et es. See Ex. 2340 at 236
( pr ohi bi t i ng st udent - at hl et es f r omaccept i ng any l oan i ssued based
on t he “st udent - at hl et e’ s at hl et i cs r eput at i on, ski l l or pay- back
pot ent i al as a f ut ur e pr of essi onal at hl et e”) . None of t he NCAA’ s
wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat i t s cur r ent r ul es woul d not suf f i ce t o
pr event st udent - at hl et es f r ombor r owi ng agai nst t hei r f ut ur e
compensat i on. Nor di d t hey r ul e out t hat t he NCAA and i t s member
school s coul d pl ace t he money i n a speci al account , such as a
spendt hr i f t t r ust , t o pr event such bor r owi ng. Accor di ngl y, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat al l owi ng FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
school s t o hol d i n t r ust a l i mi t ed and equal shar e of l i censi ng
r evenue f or t hei r r ecr ui t s woul d pr ovi de a l ess r est r i ct i ve means
of achi evi ng t he NCAA’ s st at ed pur poses.
Pl ai nt i f f s’ t hi r d pr oposed al t er nat i ve, however - - al l owi ng
st udent - at hl et es t o r ecei ve money f or endor sement s - - does not
of f er a l ess r est r i ct i ve way f or t he NCAA t o achi eve i t s pur poses.
Al l owi ng st udent - at hl et es t o endor se commer ci al pr oduct s woul d
under mi ne t he ef f or t s of bot h t he NCAA and i t s member school s t o
pr ot ect agai nst t he “commer ci al expl oi t at i on” of st udent - at hl et es.
Al t hough t he t r i al r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence - - and Dr . Emmer t
hi msel f acknowl edged - - t hat t he NCAA has not al ways succeeded i n
pr ot ect i ng st udent - at hl et es f r omcommer ci al expl oi t at i on, t hi s
f ai l ur e does not j ust i f y expandi ng oppor t uni t i es f or commer ci al
expl oi t at i on of st udent - at hl et es i n t he f ut ur e. Pl ai nt i f f s
t hemsel ves pr evi ousl y i ndi cat ed t hat t hey wer e not seeki ng t o
enj oi n t he NCAA f r omenf or ci ng i t s cur r ent r ul es pr ohi bi t i ng such
endor sement s. I n l i ght of t hi s r ecor d, t he Cour t f i nds t hat
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page47 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


48

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pl ai nt i f f s’ t hi r d pr oposed l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve does not
of f er t he NCAA a vi abl e means of achi evi ng i t s st at ed goal s.
CONCLUSI ONS OF LAW
I . Legal St andar d under t he Sect i on 1 of t he Sher man Act
Sect i on 1 of t he Sher man Act makes i t i l l egal t o f or many
“cont r act , combi nat i on i n t he f or mof t r ust or ot her wi se, or
conspi r acy, i n r est r ai nt of t r ade or commer ce among t he sever al
St at es. ” 15 U. S. C. § 1. To pr evai l on a cl ai munder t hi s
sect i on, a pl ai nt i f f must show “‘ ( 1) t hat t her e was a cont r act ,
combi nat i on, or conspi r acy; ( 2) t hat t he agr eement unr easonabl y
r est r ai ned t r ade under ei t her a per se r ul e of i l l egal i t y or a
r ul e of r eason anal ysi s; and ( 3) t hat t he r est r ai nt af f ect ed
i nt er st at e commer ce. ’ ” Tanaka v. Uni v. of S. Cal . , 252 F. 3d 1059,
1062 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Hai r st on v. Paci f i c 10 Conf er ence,
101 F. 3d 1315, 1318 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ) .
I n t hi s case, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he NCAA’ s r ul es and
byl aws oper at e as an unr easonabl e r est r ai nt of t r ade. I n
par t i cul ar , t hey seek t o chal l enge t he set of r ul es t hat pr ecl ude
FBS f oot bal l pl ayer s and Di vi si on I men’ s basket bal l pl ayer s f r om
r ecei vi ng any compensat i on, beyond t he val ue of t hei r at hl et i c
schol ar shi ps, f or t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses
i n vi deogames, l i ve game t el ecast s, r e- br oadcast s, and ar chi val
game f oot age. The NCAA does not di sput e t hat t hese r ul es wer e
enact ed and ar e enf or ced pur suant t o an agr eement among i t s
Di vi si on I member school s and conf er ences. Nor does i t di sput e
t hat t hese r ul es af f ect i nt er st at e commer ce. Accor di ngl y, t he
onl y r emai ni ng quest i on her e i s whet her t he chal l enged r ul es
r est r ai n t r ade unr easonabl y.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page48 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


49

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“The r ul e of r eason i s t he pr esumpt i ve or def aul t st andar d”
f or maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on. Cal i f or ni a ex r el . Har r i s v.
Saf eway, I nc. , 651 F. 3d 1118, 1133 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Texaco
I nc. v. Dagher , 547 U. S. 1, 5 ( 2006) ) . Al t hough cer t ai n
r est r ai nt s may be exami ned under a t r uncat ed “qui ck l ook” or per
se anal ysi s, t he Supr eme Cour t has “expr essed r el uct ance t o adopt
per se r ul es wi t h r egar d t o ‘ r est r ai nt s i mposed i n t he cont ext of
busi ness r el at i onshi ps wher e t he economi c i mpact of cer t ai n
pr act i ces i s not i mmedi at el y obvi ous. ’ ” St at e Oi l Co. v. Khan,
522 U. S. 3, 10 ( 1997) ( ci t i ng FTC v. I ndi ana Feder at i on of
Dent i st s, 476 U. S. 447, 458- 459 ( 1986) ) . The Supr eme Cour t has
speci f i cal l y hel d t hat concer t ed act i ons under t aken by j oi nt
vent ur es shoul d be anal yzed under t he r ul e of r eason. Amer i can
Needl e, I nc. v. Nat ’ l Foot bal l League, 560 U. S. 183, 203 ( 2010)
( “When ‘ r est r ai nt s on compet i t i on ar e essent i al i f t he pr oduct i s
t o be avai l abl e at al l , ’ per se r ul es of i l l egal i t y ar e
i nappl i cabl e, and i nst ead t he r est r ai nt must be j udged accor di ng
t o t he f l exi bl e Rul e of Reason. ” ( ci t i ng NCAA v. Boar d of Regent s
of Uni v. of Okl ahoma, 468 U. S. 85, 101 ( 1984) ) ) . Thus, as
expl ai ned i n pr i or or der s, t he Cour t anal yzes t he chal l enged
r est r ai nt i n t hi s case under t he r ul e of r eason r at her t han a
“qui ck l ook” or per se r ul e. See Case No. 09- 1967, Docket No.
1025, Apr i l 11, 2014 Or der , at 8- 9; Case No. 09- 1967, Docket No.
151, Feb. 8, 2010 Or der , at 9–10.
“A r est r ai nt vi ol at es t he r ul e of r eason i f t he r est r ai nt ’ s
har mt o compet i t i on out wei ghs i t s pr ocompet i t i ve ef f ect s. ”
Tanaka, 252 F. 3d at 1063. Cour t s t ypi cal l y r el y on a bur den-
shi f t i ng f r amewor k t o conduct t hi s bal anci ng. Under t hat
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page49 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


50

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f r amewor k, t he “pl ai nt i f f bear s t he i ni t i al bur den of showi ng t hat
t he r est r ai nt pr oduces ‘ si gni f i cant ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s’
wi t hi n a ‘ r el evant mar ket . ’ ” I d. ( ci t i ng Hai r st on, 101 F. 3d at
1319) . I f t he pl ai nt i f f sat i sf i es t hi s i ni t i al bur den, “t he
def endant must come f or war d wi t h evi dence of t he r est r ai nt ’ s
pr ocompet i t i ve ef f ect s. ” I d. Fi nal l y, i f t he def endant meet s
t hi s bur den, t he pl ai nt i f f must “show t hat ‘ any l egi t i mat e
obj ect i ves can be achi eved i n a subst ant i al l y l ess r est r i ct i ve
manner . ’ ” I d. ( ci t i ng Hai r st on, 101 F. 3d at 1319) .
I I . Ant i compet i t i ve Ef f ect s i n t he Rel evant Mar ket s
“Pr oof t hat def endant ’ s act i vi t i es had an i mpact upon
compet i t i on i n t he r el evant mar ket i s ‘ an absol ut el y essent i al
el ement of t he r ul e of r eason case. ’ ” Super mar ket of Homes, I nc.
v. San Fer nando Val l ey Bd. of Real t or s, 786 F. 2d 1400, 1405 ( 9t h
Ci r . 1986) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The t er m“r el evant mar ket , ” i n
t hi s cont ext ,

“encompasses not i ons of geogr aphy as wel l as
pr oduct use, qual i t y, and descr i pt i on. The
geogr aphi c mar ket ext ends t o t he ar ea of
ef f ect i ve compet i t i on . . . wher e buyer s can
t ur n f or al t er nat i ve sour ces of suppl y. The
pr oduct mar ket i ncl udes t he pool of goods or
ser vi ces t hat enj oy r easonabl e
i nt er changeabi l i t y of use and cr oss- el ast i ci t y
of demand. ”
Tanaka, 252 F. 3d at 1063 ( quot i ng Ol t z v. St . Pet er ’ s Cmt y. Hosp. ,
861 F. 2d 1440, 1446 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .
Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he chal l enged r est r ai nt causes
ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s i n t wo r el at ed nat i onal mar ket s: ( 1) t he
“col l ege educat i on mar ket , ” i n whi ch col l eges and uni ver si t i es
compet e t o r ecr ui t st udent - at hl et es t o pl ay FBS f oot bal l or
Di vi si on I basket bal l ; and ( 2) t he “gr oup l i censi ng mar ket , ” i n
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page50 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


51

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whi ch vi deogame devel oper s, t el evi si on net wor ks, and ot her s
compet e f or gr oup l i censes t o use t he names, i mages, and
l i kenesses of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I men’ s basket bal l pl ayer s
i n vi deogames, t el ecast s, and cl i ps. The Cour t addr esses each of
t hese mar ket s i n t ur n.
A. Col l ege Educat i on Mar ket
1. Mar ket Def i ni t i on
As out l i ned i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , Pl ai nt i f f s pr oduced
suf f i ci ent evi dence at t r i al t o est abl i sh t he exi st ence of a
nat i onal mar ket i n whi ch NCAA Di vi si on I school s compet e t o sel l
uni que bundl es of goods and ser vi ces t o el i t e f oot bal l and
basket bal l r ecr ui t s. Speci f i cal l y, t hese school s compet e t o of f er
r ecr ui t s t he oppor t uni t y t o ear n a hi gher educat i on whi l e pl ayi ng
f or an FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I men’ s basket bal l t eam.
8
I n
exchange, t he r ecr ui t s who accept t hese of f er s pr ovi de t hei r
school s wi t h t hei r at hl et i c ser vi ces and acqui esce i n t hei r
school s’ use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses whi l e t hey ar e
enr ol l ed. The r ecr ui t s must al so pay f or any ot her cost s of
at t endance not cover ed by t hei r gr ant s- i n- ai d.
The NCAA cont ends t hat i t does not r est r ai n compet i t i on i n
t hi s mar ket . I n par t i cul ar , i t ar gues t hat FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s l ack t he power t o f i x pr i ces i n t hi s
mar ket because t hey must compet e wi t h ot her col l eges and
uni ver si t i es - - such as t hose i n ot her di vi si ons and col l ege

8
Thi s mar ket coul d be di vi ded i nt o t wo submar ket s - - one i n whi ch
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s compet e f or el i t e basket bal l r ecr ui t s and
one i n whi ch FBS f oot bal l school s compet e f or el i t e f oot bal l r ecr ui t s.
However , because t he par t i es’ evi dence and ar gument s i n t hi s case appl y
gener al l y t o bot h of t hese submar ket s, t her e i s no need t o subdi vi de t he
br oader mar ket f or t he pur poses of t hi s anal ysi s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page51 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at hl et i c associ at i ons - - i n suppl yi ng educat i onal and at hl et i c
oppor t uni t i es t o el i t e r ecr ui t s. The NCAA al so poi nt s t o f or ei gn
pr of essi onal spor t s l eagues and domest i c mi nor l eagues whi ch mi ght
l i kewi se pr ovi de al t er nat i ves t o pl ayi ng FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on
I basket bal l . By f ai l i ng t o account f or t hese ot her school s and
l eagues, t he NCAA ar gues, Pl ai nt i f f s have def i ned t he f i el d of
compet i t i on i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket t oo nar r owl y.
The “f i el d of compet i t i on” wi t hi n a gi ven pr oduct mar ket
consi st s of “t he gr oup or gr oups of sel l er s or pr oducer s who have
act ual or pot ent i al abi l i t y t o depr i ve each ot her of si gni f i cant
l evel s of busi ness. ” Thur man I ndus. , I nc. v. Pay ‘ N Pak St or es,
I nc. , 875 F. 2d 1369, 1374 ( 9t h Ci r . 1989) . Thi s gr oup i s not
l i mi t ed t o pr oducer s of t he par t i cul ar “pr oduct at i ssue” but al so
i ncl udes t he pr oducer s of “al l economi c subst i t ut es f or t he
pr oduct . ” Newcal I ndus. , I nc. v. I kon Of f i ce Sol ut i on, 513 F. 3d
1038, 1045 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) . To det er mi ne whet her a pr oduct has
economi c subst i t ut es, cour t s t ypi cal l y consi der t wo f act or s:
“f i r st , [ t he pr oduct ’ s] r easonabl e i nt er changeabi l i t y f or t he same
or si mi l ar uses; and second, cr oss- el ast i ci t y of demand, an
economi c t er mdescr i bi ng t he r esponsi veness of sal es of one
pr oduct t o pr i ce changes i n anot her . ” Los Angel es Memor i al
Col i seumComm’ n v. Nat ’ l Foot bal l League, 726 F. 2d 1381, 1393 ( 9t h
Ci r . 1984) ; see al so Br own Shoe Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 370 U. S.
294, 325 ( 1962) ( “The out er boundar i es of a pr oduct mar ket ar e
det er mi ned by t he r easonabl e i nt er changeabi l i t y of use or t he
cr oss- el ast i ci t y of demand bet ween t he pr oduct i t sel f and
subst i t ut es f or i t . ”) . Thi s anal ysi s r equi r es an exami nat i on of
t he pr i ce, use, and qual i t i es of al l pot ent i al subst i t ut es f or t he
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page52 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pr oduct at i ssue. See Pal adi n Associ at es, I nc. v. Mont ana Power
Co. , 328 F. 3d 1145, 1163 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( “For ant i t r ust pur poses,
a ‘ mar ket i s composed of pr oduct s t hat have r easonabl e
i nt er changeabi l i t y f or t he pur poses f or whi ch t hey ar e pr oduced - -
pr i ce, use and qual i t i es consi der ed. ’ ” ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . An
anal ysi s of t hese f act or s i n t he pr esent case demonst r at es t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s have pr oper l y def i ned t he scope of a r el evant col l ege
educat i on mar ket .
As set f or t h i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , t he pr oduct t hat FBS
and Di vi si on I school s of f er i s uni que. The combi nat i on of
educat i onal and at hl et i c oppor t uni t i es of f er ed by school s out si de
of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I - - i ncl udi ng school s i n FCS,
Di vi si ons I I and I I I , and associ at i ons l i ke t he NAI A, USCAA,
NJ CAA, or NCCAA - - di f f er si gni f i cant l y i n bot h pr i ce and qual i t y
f r omt hose of f er ed by FBS and Di vi si on I school s. Non- Di vi si on I
school s t ypi cal l y of f er a l ower l evel of at hl et i c compet i t i on,
i nf er i or t r ai ni ng f aci l i t i es, l ower - pai d coaches, and f ewer
oppor t uni t i es t o pl ay i n f r ont of l ar ge cr owds and on t el evi si on.
Fur t her mor e, because many of t hese school s do not of f er at hl et i c
schol ar shi ps, t he cost of at t endi ng t hese i nst i t ut i ons i s much
hi gher f or many st udent - at hl et es t han t he cost of at t endi ng an FBS
f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l school . Thi s i s why r ecr ui t s
who r ecei ve schol ar shi p of f er s t o pl ay FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I
basket bal l r ar el y t ur n t hemdown and, when t hey do, al most never
do so t o pl ay f oot bal l or basket bal l at a school out si de of FBS or
Di vi si on I . I n shor t , non- FBS and non- Di vi si on I school s do not
compet e wi t h FBS and Di vi si on I school s i n t he r ecr ui t i ng mar ket ,
j ust as t hey do not on t he f oot bal l f i el d or t he basket bal l cour t .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page53 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The same hol ds t r ue f or pr of essi onal spor t s l eagues such as
t he AFL, NBA D- League, and f or ei gn f oot bal l and basket bal l
l eagues. These l eagues do not of f er r ecr ui t s oppor t uni t i es t o
ear n a hi gher educat i on or r egul ar l y showcase t hei r at hl et i c
t al ent s on nat i onal t el evi si on. The NCAA’ s own evi dence
demonst r at es t hat FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l command a
si gni f i cant l y l ar ger domest i c t el evi si on audi ence t han vi r t ual l y
ever y ot her f oot bal l or basket bal l l eague, wi t h t he except i ons of
t he NFL and NBA ( nei t her of whi ch per mi t s an at hl et e t o ent er i t s
l eague di r ect l y f r omhi gh school ) . The evi dence shows t hat el i t e
f oot bal l and basket bal l r ecr ui t s r ar el y pur sue car eer s i n t hese
second- t i er l eagues i mmedi at el y af t er hi gh school and
over whel mi ngl y pr ef er t o pl ay f or FBS f oot bal l t eams and Di vi si on
I basket bal l t eams.
I n sum, t he qual i t at i ve di f f er ences bet ween t he oppor t uni t i es
of f er ed by FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s and
t hose of f er ed by ot her school s and spor t s l eagues i l l ust r at e t hat
FBS f oot bal l school s and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s oper at e i n
a di st i nct mar ket . See Rock v. NCAA, 2013 WL 4479815, at *13
( S. D. I nd. ) ( f i ndi ng pl ai nt i f f ’ s al l egat i ons r egar di ng “t he
super i or compet i t i on, i nst i t ut i onal suppor t , over al l pr ef er ence,
hi gher r evenue, and mor e schol ar shi p oppor t uni t i es pr ovi ded i n
Di vi si on I f oot bal l , as opposed t o Di vi si on I I or NAI A f oot bal l ”
suf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s asser t i on t hat “Di vi si on I I and NAI A
f oot bal l ar e not adequat e subst i t ut es f or Di vi si on I f oot bal l and,
t hus, not par t of t he same r el evant mar ket ”) ; Whi t e v. NCAA, Case
No. 06- 999, Docket No. 72, at 3 ( C. D. Cal . Sept . 20, 2006)
( f i ndi ng pl ai nt i f f ’ s al l egat i ons t hat st udent - at hl et es had no
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page54 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r easonabl y i nt er changeabl e al t er nat i ves f or t he “uni que
combi nat i on of coachi ng- ser vi ces and academi cs” of f er ed by FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s suf f i ci ent t o pl ead a
r el evant mar ket ) . So, t oo, does t he f act t hat hi st or i c
f l uct uat i ons i n t he pr i ce of at t endi ng FBS and Di vi si on I school s
r esul t i ng f r omchanges i n t he gr ant - i n- ai d l i mi t have not caused
l ar ge number s of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l r ecr ui t s
t o mi gr at e t owar d ot her school s or pr of essi onal l eagues. See
Tr i al Tr . 127: 4- : 17 ( Nol l ) ; Lucas Aut o. Engi neer i ng, I nc. v.
Br i dgest one/ Fi r est one, I nc. , 275 F. 3d 762, 767 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001)
( “The det er mi nat i on of what const i t ut es t he r el evant pr oduct
mar ket hi nges, t her ef or e, on a det er mi nat i on of t hose pr oduct s t o
whi ch consumer s wi l l t ur n, gi ven r easonabl e var i at i ons i n
pr i ce. ”) . Taken t oget her , t hi s evi dence shows t hat t he var i ous
school s and pr of essi onal l eagues t hat t he NCAA has i dent i f i ed l ack
t he power t o depr i ve FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
school s of a si gni f i cant number of r ecr ui t s. Accor di ngl y, t hese
ot her school s and l eagues ar e not suppl i er s i n t he mar ket t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s have i dent i f i ed.
2. The Chal l enged Rest r ai nt
Because FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s ar e
t he onl y suppl i er s i n t he r el evant mar ket , t hey have t he power ,
when act i ng i n concer t t hr ough t he NCAA and i t s conf er ences, t o
f i x t he pr i ce of t hei r pr oduct . They have chosen t o exer ci se t hi s
power by f or mi ng an agr eement t o char ge ever y r ecr ui t t he same
pr i ce f or t he bundl e of educat i onal and at hl et i c oppor t uni t i es
t hat t hey of f er : t o wi t , t he r ecr ui t ’ s at hl et i c ser vi ces al ong
wi t h t he use of hi s name, i mage, and l i keness whi l e he i s i n
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page55 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


56

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
school . I f any school seeks t o l ower t hi s f i xed pr i ce - - by
of f er i ng any r ecr ui t a cash r ebat e, def er r ed payment , or ot her
f or mof di r ect compensat i on - - t hat school may be subj ect t o
sanct i ons by t he NCAA.
Thi s pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement const i t ut es a r est r ai nt of t r ade.
The evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al makes cl ear t hat , i n t he absence
of t hi s agr eement , cer t ai n school s woul d compet e f or r ecr ui t s by
of f er i ng t hema l ower pr i ce f or t he oppor t uni t y t o pl ay FBS
f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l whi l e t hey at t end col l ege.
I ndeed, t he NCAA’ s own exper t , Dr . Rubi nf el d, acknowl edged t hat
t he NCAA oper at es as a car t el t hat i mposes a r est r ai nt on t r ade i n
t hi s mar ket .
Despi t e t hi s undi sput ed evi dence, t he NCAA cont ends t hat i t s
conduct does not amount t o pr i ce- f i xi ng because t he pr i ce t hat
most st udent - at hl et es act ual l y pay i s “at or cl ose t o zer o” due t o
t hei r at hl et i c schol ar shi ps. Thi s ar gument mi schar act er i zes t he
commer ci al nat ur e of t he t r ansact i ons bet ween FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s and t hei r r ecr ui t s. Whi l e i t i s
t r ue t hat many FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s do
not pay f or t ui t i on, r oom, or boar d i n a t r adi t i onal sense, t hey
never t hel ess pr ovi de t hei r school s wi t h somet hi ng of si gni f i cant
val ue: t hei r at hl et i c ser vi ces and t he r i ght s t o use t hei r names,
i mages, and l i kenesses whi l e t hey ar e enr ol l ed. They must al so
pay t he i nci dent al expenses of t hei r col l ege at t endance. The
Sevent h Ci r cui t r ecent l y obser ved t hat t hese “t r ansact i ons bet ween
NCAA school s and st udent - at hl et es ar e, t o some degr ee, commer ci al
i n nat ur e, and t her ef or e t ake pl ace i n a r el evant mar ket wi t h
r espect t o t he Sher man Act . ” Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F. 3d 328, 341
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page56 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


57

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
( 7t h Ci r . 2012) . The cour t r easoned t hat “t he t r ansact i ons t hose
school s make wi t h pr emi er at hl et es - - f ul l schol ar shi ps i n
exchange f or at hl et i c ser vi ces - - ar e not noncommer ci al , si nce
school s can make mi l l i ons of dol l ar s as a r esul t of t hese
t r ansact i ons. ” I d. at 340.
A cour t i n t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of Cal i f or ni a si mi l ar l y
concl uded t hat t hese t r ansact i ons t ake pl ace wi t hi n a cogni zabl e
ant i t r ust mar ket . I n Whi t e, t he cour t f ound t hat a gr oup of
st udent - at hl et es had st at ed a val i d Sher man Act cl ai magai nst t he
NCAA by al l egi ng t hat i t s cap on t he val ue of gr ant s- i n- ai d
oper at ed as a pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement among FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s. Case No. 06- 999, Docket No. 72, at
4. The cour t speci f i cal l y r ej ect ed t he NCAA’ s ar gument t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f s had f ai l ed t o al l ege a suf f i ci ent har mt o compet i t i on.
I t expl ai ned,

Pl ai nt i f f s’ [ compl ai nt ] al l eges t hat st udent -
at hl et es ar e consumer s of t he hi gher educat i on
and coachi ng ser vi ces t hat t he NCAA school s
pr ovi de. Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he GI A
[ gr ant - i n- ai d] cap oper at es t o r est r i ct t he
pr i ce at whi ch st udent - at hl et es pur chase t hose
ser vi ces by f or ci ng st udent - at hl et es t o bear a
gr eat er por t i on of t he cost of at t endance t han
t hey woul d have bor ne i f t he GI A cap had not
been i n pl ace. Taken i n a l i ght most
f avor abl e t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s, t hese al l egat i ons
suggest t hat t he GI A cap har ms woul d- be
buyer s, f or ci ng t hemt o pay hi gher pr i ces t han
woul d r esul t f r omunf et t er ed compet i t i on.
I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The same r easoni ng gover ns her e, wher e
Pl ai nt i f f s have shown t hat FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
school s have f i xed t he pr i ce of t hei r pr oduct by agr eei ng not t o
of f er any r ecr ui t a shar e of t he l i censi ng r evenues der i ved f r om
t he use of hi s name, i mage, and l i keness.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page57 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


58

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The f act t hat t hi s pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement oper at es by
under val ui ng t he name, i mage, and l i keness r i ght s t hat t he
r ecr ui t s pr ovi de t o t he school s - - r at her t han by expl i ci t l y
r equi r i ng school s t o char ge a speci f i c monet ar y pr i ce - - does not
pr ecl ude ant i t r ust l i abi l i t y her e. Feder al ant i t r ust l aw
pr ohi bi t s var i ous ki nds of pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement s, even i ndi r ect
r est r ai nt s on pr i ce. See Uni t ed St at es v. Socony- VacuumOi l Co. ,
310 U. S. 150, 223 ( 1940) ( “[ T] he machi ner y empl oyed by a
combi nat i on f or pr i ce- f i xi ng i s i mmat er i al . Under t he Sher man Act
a combi nat i on f or med f or t he pur pose and wi t h t he ef f ect of
r ai si ng, depr essi ng, f i xi ng, peggi ng, or st abi l i zi ng t he pr i ce of
a commodi t y i n i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce i s i l l egal per
se. ”) . I n Cat al ano, I nc. v. Tar get Sal es, I nc. , f or i nst ance, t he
Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat an agr eement among beer whol esal er s t o
cease pr ovi di ng i nt er est - f r ee cr edi t s t o r et ai l er s was “mer el y one
f or mof pr i ce f i xi ng” and coul d t her ef or e be “pr esumed i l l egal ”
under § 1 of t he Sher man Act . 446 U. S. 643, 650 ( 1980) . The
Cour t r easoned t hat t he “agr eement t o t er mi nat e t he pr act i ce of
gi vi ng cr edi t i s [ ] t ant amount t o an agr eement t o el i mi nat e
di scount s, and t hus f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he t r adi t i onal per se
r ul e agai nst pr i ce f i xi ng. ” I d. at 648; see al so i d. ( “[ C] r edi t
t er ms must be char act er i zed as an i nsepar abl e par t of t he
pr i ce. ”) . I t not ed t hat , pr i or t o t hei r agr eement , t he
“whol esal er s had compet ed wi t h each ot her wi t h r espect t o t r ade
cr edi t , and t he cr edi t t er ms f or i ndi vi dual r et ai l er s had var i ed
subst ant i al l y. ” I d. at 644- 45. The agr eement t o el i mi nat e t hi s
pr act i ce t hus “ext i ngui sh[ ed] one f or mof compet i t i on among t he
sel l er s” and coul d be pr esumed unl awf ul , even t hough i t di d not
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page58 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


59

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ul t i mat el y r equi r e t he sel l er s t o set t hei r pr i ces at some
speci f i c, pr e- det er mi ned l evel . I d.
Li ke t he whol esal er s’ agr eement i n Cat al ano, t he agr eement
among FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s not t o of f er
r ecr ui t s a shar e of t hei r l i censi ng r evenue el i mi nat es one f or mof
pr i ce compet i t i on. Al t hough t hi s agr eement may oper at e t o f i x
pr i ces i ndi r ect l y, r at her t han di r ect l y, i t i s never t hel ess
suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y Pl ai nt i f f s’ i ni t i al bur den under t he r ul e of
r eason. Pl ai nt i f f s need not i dent i f y an agr eement as obvi ousl y
unl awf ul as t he whol esal er s’ agr eement i n Cat al ano t o est abl i sh a
per se vi ol at i on, l et al one t o meet t he l ower bur den i mposed by
t he f i r st st ep of a r ul e of r eason anal ysi s. See 446 U. S. at 644-
45 ( “[ W] e have hel d agr eement s t o be unl awf ul per se t hat had
subst ant i al l y l ess di r ect i mpact on pr i ce t han t he agr eement
al l eged i n t hi s case. ”) .
I ndeed, i n anot her case i nvol vi ng concer t ed act i on by member s
of a spor t s l eague, t hen- J udge Sot omayor obser ved t hat an
ant i t r ust pl ai nt i f f may somet i mes meet i t s bur den by i dent i f yi ng
an agr eement t o f i x pr i ces i ndi r ect l y. See Maj or League Basebal l
Pr oper t i es, I nc. v. Sal vi no, I nc. , 542 F. 3d 290, 337 ( 2d Ci r .
2008) ( Sot omayor , J . , concur r i ng) . I n t hat case, t he pl ai nt i f f
sought t o chal l enge an agr eement among Maj or League Basebal l t eams
t o l i cense t hei r t r ademar ks and ot her i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y
excl usi vel y t hr ough a desi gnat ed t hi r d par t y cal l ed Maj or League
Basebal l Pr oper t i es ( MLBP) . The pl ai nt i f f al l eged t hat t he
agr eement vi ol at ed t he Sher man Act because i t el i mi nat ed pr i ce
compet i t i on among t he t eams as suppl i er s of i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y.
A t hr ee- j udge panel of t he Second Ci r cui t r ej ect ed t hi s cl ai m,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page59 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f i ndi ng t hat t he agr eement di d not const i t ut e pr i ce- f i xi ng. I n a
separ at e concur r ence, t hen- J udge Sot omayor not ed t hat , al t hough
she agr eed t hat t he l i censi ng ar r angement was l awf ul , she bel i eved
t hat t he maj or i t y had endor sed “an over l y f or mal i st i c vi ew of
pr i ce f i xi ng. ” I d. at 334. She r easoned, “Whi l e t he MLBP
agr eement does not speci f y a pr i ce t o be char ged, t he ef f ect of
t he agr eement cl ear l y el i mi nat es pr i ce compet i t i on bet ween t he
[ t eams] f or t r ademar k l i censes. An agr eement t o el i mi nat e pr i ce
compet i t i on f r omt he mar ket i s t he essence of pr i ce f i xi ng. ” I d.
at 335; see al so i d. at 336- 37 ( “I n ot her wor ds, an agr eement
bet ween compet i t or s t o ‘ shar e pr of i t s’ or t o make a t hi r d par t y
t he excl usi ve sel l er of t hei r compet i ng pr oduct s t hat has t he
pur pose and ef f ect of f i xi ng, st abi l i zi ng, or r ai si ng pr i ces may
be a per se vi ol at i on of t he Sher man Act , even i f no expl i ci t
pr i ce i s r ef er enced i n t he agr eement . ”) . Then- J udge Sot omayor
al so not ed t hat such an agr eement coul d be unl awf ul , even i f i t
was onl y meant t o bi nd member s of a j oi nt vent ur e. She expl ai ned,

[ T] he ant i t r ust l aws pr ohi bi t t wo compani es A
and B, pr oducer s of X, f r omagr eei ng t o set
t he pr i ce of X. Li kewi se, A and B cannot
si mpl y get ar ound t hi s r ul e by agr eei ng t o set
t he pr i ce of X t hr ough a t hi r d- par t y
i nt er medi ar y or “j oi nt vent ur e” i f t he pur pose
and ef f ect of t hat agr eement i s t o r ai se,
depr ess, f i x, peg, or st abi l i ze t he pr i ce of
X.
I d. at 336.
9
Al t hough she ul t i mat el y concl uded t hat t he MLBP
agr eement ser ved a pr ocompet i t i ve pur pose, because i t i ncr eased

9

The Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y r el i ed on t hi s l anguage f r omt hen-
J udge Sot omayor ’ s concur r ence i n anot her Sher man Act case i nvol vi ng a
chal l enge t o concer t ed act i on by member s of a spor t s l eague. Amer i can
Needl e, 560 U. S. at 202 ( “[ C] ompet i t or s ‘ cannot si mpl y get ar ound’
ant i t r ust l i abi l i t y by act i ng ‘ t hr ough a t hi r d- par t y i nt er medi ar y or
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page60 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


61

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t he t ot al number of l i censes sol d, her opi ni on never t hel ess
i l l ust r at es t hat pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement s t ake many f or ms and may
be unl awf ul even i f t hey ar e i mpl ement ed by member s of a j oi nt
vent ur e.
Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s have char act er i zed FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s as sel l er s i n t he mar ket f or
educat i onal and at hl et i c oppor t uni t i es, i n t hei r post - t r i al br i ef
t hey ar gued t hat t he school s coul d al t er nat i vel y be char act er i zed
as buyer s i n a mar ket f or r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and
l i censi ng r i ght s. The r el evant mar ket woul d be t hat f or t he
r ecr ui t ment of t he hi ghest r anked mal e hi gh school f oot bal l and
basket bal l pl ayer s each year . Vi ewed f r omt hi s per spect i ve,
Pl ai nt i f f s’ ant i t r ust cl ai mar i ses under a t heor y of monopsony,
r at her t han monopol y, al l egi ng an agr eement t o f i x pr i ces among
buyer s r at her t han sel l er s. Such an agr eement , i f pr oven, woul d
vi ol at e § 1 of t he Sher man Act j ust as a pr i ce- f i xi ng agr eement
among sel l er s woul d. See gener al l y Omni car e, I nc. v. Uni t edHeal t h
Gr p. , I nc. , 629 F. 3d 697, 705 ( 7t h Ci r . 2011) ( “Or di nar i l y, pr i ce-
f i xi ng agr eement s exi st bet ween sel l er s who col l ude t o set t hei r
pr i ces above or bel ow pr evai l i ng mar ket pr i ces. But buyer s may
al so vi ol at e § 1 by f or mi ng what i s somet i mes known as a ‘ buyer s’
car t el . ’ ”) ; Vogel v. Am. Soc. of Appr ai ser s, 744 F. 2d 598, 601
( 7t h Ci r . 1984) ( “J ust as a sel l er s’ car t el enabl es t he char gi ng
of monopol y pr i ces, a buyer s’ car t el enabl es t he char gi ng of
monopsony pr i ces; and monopol y and monopsony ar e symmet r i cal
di st or t i ons of compet i t i on f r oman economi c st andpoi nt . ”

‘ j oi nt vent ur e. ’ ’ ” ( quot i ng Sal vi no, 542 F. 3d at 336 ( Sot omayor , J . ,
concur r i ng) ) .

Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page61 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


62

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . The Supr eme Cour t has not ed t hat t he
“ki nshi p bet ween monopol y and monopsony suggest s t hat si mi l ar
l egal st andar ds shoul d appl y t o cl ai ms of monopol i zat i on and t o
cl ai ms of monopsoni zat i on. ” Weyer haeuser Co. v. Ross- Si mmons
Har dwood Lumber Co. , I nc. , 549 U. S. 312, 322 ( 2007) ( ci t i ng Roger
G. Nol l , “‘ Buyer Power ’ and Economi c Pol i cy, ” 72 Ant i t r ust L. J .
589, 591 ( 2005) ) .
I n r ecent year s, sever al cour t s have speci f i cal l y r ecogni zed
t hat monopsoni st i c pr act i ces i n a mar ket f or at hl et i c ser vi ces may
pr ovi de a cogni zabl e basi s f or r el i ef under t he Sher man Act . See,
e. g. , Rock, 2013 WL 4479815, at *11 ( f i ndi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f had
i dent i f i ed a cogni zabl e mar ket i n whi ch “buyer s of l abor ( t he
school s) ar e al l member s of NCAA Di vi si on I f oot bal l and ar e
compet i ng f or t he l abor of t he sel l er s ( t he pr ospect i ve st udent -
at hl et es who seek t o pl ay Di vi si on I f oot bal l ) ”) ; I n r e NCAA I - A
Wal k- On Foot bal l Pl ayer s Li t i g. , 398 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1150 ( W. D.
Wash. 2005) ( “Pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged a suf f i ci ent ‘ i nput ’ mar ket
i n whi ch NCAA member school s compet e f or ski l l ed amat eur f oot bal l
pl ayer s. ”) . I ndeed, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t r ecent l y not ed i n Agnew
t hat t he “pr oper i dent i f i cat i on of a l abor mar ket f or st udent -
at hl et es . . . woul d meet pl ai nt i f f s’ bur den of descr i bi ng a
cogni zabl e mar ket under t he Sher man Act . ” 683 F. 3d at 346. Gi ven
t hat Pl ai nt i f f s’ al t er nat i ve monopsony t heor y mi r r or s t hei r
monopol y pr i ce- f i xi ng t heor y, t he evi dence pr esent ed and f act s
f ound above ar e suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a r est r ai nt of t r ade i n a
mar ket f or r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces j ust as t hey ar e t o
est abl i sh a r est r ai nt of t r ade i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket .
As expl ai ned above, vi ewed f r omt hi s per spect i ve, t he sel l er s i n
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page62 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


63

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t hi s mar ket ar e t he r ecr ui t s; t he buyer s ar e FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l school s; t he pr oduct i s t he combi nat i on of
t he r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s; and t he
r est r ai nt i s t he agr eement among school s not t o of f er any r ecr ui t
mor e t han t he val ue of a f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d. I n t he absence of
t hi s r est r ai nt , school s woul d compet e agai nst one anot her by
of f er i ng t o pay mor e f or t he best r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and
l i censi ng r i ght s - - t hat i s, t hey woul d engage i n pr i ce
compet i t i on.
The NCAA ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot pr evai l under a
monopsony t heor y because t hey have not pr esent ed evi dence of an
i mpact on pr i ce or out put i n a “downst r eammar ket . ” Tr i al Tr .
2766: 16- : 22 ( St i r oh) . They ci t e Dr . St i r oh’ s t est i mony t hat t he
onl y way t hat a r est r ai nt on an i nput mar ket - - such as a mar ket
f or r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s - - can gi ve
r i se t o an ant i compet i t i ve har mi s i f t hat r est r ai nt ul t i mat el y
har ms consumer s by r educi ng out put or r ai si ng pr i ces i n a
downst r eammar ket . What ever mer i t Dr . St i r oh’ s vi ews mi ght have
among economi st s, t hey ar e not suppor t ed by t he r el evant case l aw.
The Supr eme Cour t has i ndi cat ed t hat monopsoni st i c pr act i ces t hat
har msuppl i er s may vi ol at e ant i t r ust l aw even i f t hey do not
ul t i mat el y har mconsumer s. I n Mandevi l l e I sl and Far ms v. Am.
Cr yst al Sugar Co. , 334 U. S. 219 ( 1948) , t he Supr eme Cour t
consi der ed whet her an agr eement among sugar r ef i ner s t o f i x t he
pr i ces t hey pai d f or sugar beet s const i t ut ed a vi ol at i on of t he
Sher man Act . I t concl uded t hat “t he agr eement i s t he sor t of
combi nat i on condemned by t he Act , even t hough t he pr i ce- f i xi ng was
by pur chaser s, and t he per sons speci al l y i nj ur ed . . . ar e
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page63 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sel l er s, not cust omer s or consumer s. ” I d. at 235. Not abl y, t he
Cour t r eached t hi s concl usi on despi t e a vehement di ssent f r om
J ust i ce J ackson not i ng t hat t he pr i ce of sugar had not been
af f ect ed by t he r ef i ner s’ agr eement . I d. at 247. The maj or i t y’ s
deci si on, t hus, “st r ongl y suggest s t hat suppl i er s . . . ar e
pr ot ect ed by ant i t r ust l aws even when t he ant i - compet i t i ve
act i vi t y does not har mend- user s. ” Tel ecor Communi cat i ons, I nc.
v. Sw. Bel l Tel . Co. , 305 F. 3d 1124, 1134 ( 10t h Ci r . 2002) ; see
al so Knevel baar d Dai r i es v. Kr af t Foods, I nc. , 232 F. 3d 979, 988
( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( “The Supr eme Cour t ’ s r ef er ences t o t he goal s of
achi evi ng ‘ t he l owest pr i ces, t he hi ghest qual i t y and t he gr eat est
mat er i al pr ogr ess’ and of ‘ assur [ i ng] cust omer s t he benef i t s of
pr i ce compet i t i on’ do not mean t hat conspi r aci es among buyer s t o
depr ess acqui si t i on pr i ces ar e t ol er at ed. Ever y pr ecedent i n t he
f i el d makes cl ear t hat t he i nt er act i on of compet i t i ve f or ces, not
pr i ce- r i ggi ng, i s what wi l l benef i t consumer s. ” ( emphasi s added) ) .
Thi s i s consi st ent wi t h a l ong l i ne of cases, i ncl udi ng some
deci ded by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , r ecogni zi ng t hat r est r ai nt s on
compet i t i on wi t hi n a l abor mar ket may gi ve r i se t o an ant i t r ust
vi ol at i on under § 1 of t he Sher man Act . See, e. g. , Ander son v.
Shi powner s’ Ass’ n, 272 U. S. 359, 365 ( 1926) ( hol di ng t hat a mul t i -
empl oyer agr eement among shi p owner s r est r ai ned t r ade i n a l abor
mar ket f or sai l or s) ; Todd v. Exxon Cor p. , 275 F. 3d 191, 201 ( 2d
Ci r . 2001) ( Sot omayor , J . ) ( hol di ng t hat a conspi r acy among oi l
i ndust r y empl oyer s t o set sal ar i es at “ar t i f i ci al l y l ow l evel s”
r est r ai ned t r ade i n a l abor mar ket and not i ng t hat “a hor i zont al
conspi r acy among buyer s [ of l abor ] t o st i f l e compet i t i on i s as
unl awf ul as one among sel l er s”) ; Ost r of e v. H. S. Cr ocker Co. ,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page64 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I nc. , 740 F. 2d 739, 740 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ( hol di ng t hat a mul t i -
empl oyer agr eement i n t he paper l i t hogr aph l abel i ndust r y may
r est r ai n t r ade i n a “mar ket f or per sonal ser vi ces”) . I t i s al so
consi st ent wi t h t he many r ecent cases, some of whi ch ar e ci t ed
above, r ecogni zi ng t he val i di t y of ant i t r ust cl ai ms agai nst t he
NCAA based on ant i compet i t i ve har ms i n a l abor mar ket . See, e. g. ,
Agnew, 683 F. 3d at 346 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat t he NCAA’ s schol ar shi p
r ul es may r est r ai n t r ade i n a “l abor mar ket f or st udent - at hl et es”
and not i ng t hat “l abor mar ket s ar e cogni zabl e under t he Sher man
Act ”) ; Law v. NCAA, 134 F. 3d 1010, 1015 ( 10t h Ci r . 1998) ( f i ndi ng
t hat an NCAA r ul e cappi ng compensat i on f or ent r y- l evel coaches
r est r ai ned t r ade i n a “l abor mar ket f or coachi ng ser vi ces” and
not i ng t hat “[ l ] ower pr i ces cannot j ust i f y a car t el ’ s cont r ol of
pr i ces char ged by suppl i er s, because t he car t el ul t i mat el y r obs
t he suppl i er s of t he nor mal f r ui t s of t hei r ent er pr i ses”) ; I n r e
NCAA I - A Wal k- On Foot bal l Pl ayer s Li t i g. , 398 F. Supp. 2d at 1150
( r ecogni zi ng t hat t he NCAA’ s schol ar shi p r ul es may r est r ai n t r ade
i n an “‘ i nput ’ mar ket i n whi ch NCAA member school s compet e f or
ski l l ed amat eur f oot bal l pl ayer s”) . I n f act , a cour t i n t he
Sout her n Di st r i ct of I ndi ana r ecent l y r ej ect ed t he NCAA’ s ar gument
t hat a st udent - at hl et e woul d need t o pl ead a “‘ mar ket - wi de i mpact
on t he pr i ce or out put of any commer ci al pr oduct ’ ” i n or der t o
st at e a val i d Sher man Act cl ai mchal l engi ng i t s f or mer pr ohi bi t i on
on mul t i - year f oot bal l schol ar shi ps. Rock, 2013 WL 4479815, at
*14 ( S. D. I nd. ) ( quot i ng NCAA’ s br i ef ) . The cour t i n t hat case
f ound t hat t he st udent - at hl et e’ s compl ai nt “adequat el y pl ead[ ]
ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect s of t he chal l enged byl aws” i n t he
“‘ nat i onwi de mar ket f or t he l abor of Di vi si on I f oot bal l st udent
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page65 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


66

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at hl et es’ ” based on hi s al l egat i ons t hat , i n t he absence of t he
chal l enged schol ar shi p r ul es, t he school s compet i ng f or hi s
ser vi ces woul d have of f er ed hi ma mul t i - year schol ar shi p. I d. at
*3, *15 ( quot i ng compl ai nt ) . The cour t speci f i cal l y not ed t hat
t he pl ai nt i f f had i dent i f i ed a cogni zabl e har mt o compet i t i on by
al l egi ng t hat r emovi ng t he chal l enged r est r ai nt woul d “woul d f or ce
t he school s t o ‘ compet e’ f or r ecr ui t s. ” I d. at *15. Pl ai nt i f f s
her e have pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show an anal ogous
ant i compet i t i ve ef f ect i n a si mi l ar l abor mar ket . Accor di ngl y,
t hey have shown a cogni zabl e har mt o compet i t i on under t he r ul e of
r eason.
The Cour t not es t hat Pl ai nt i f f s had not ar t i cul at ed a
monopsony t heor y pr i or t o t r i al . Thei r exper t addr essed i t at
t r i al i n r esponse t o t he Cour t ’ s quest i ons. For t hi s r eason, t he
Cour t has addr essed Pl ai nt i f f s’ monopol y t heor y i n gr eat er det ai l .
However , Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed si gni f i cant evi dence t o suppor t a
monopsony t heor y dur i ng t r i al . Bot h si des di scussed t he t heor y at
l engt h i n t hei r post - t r i al br i ef s. The evi dence pr esent ed at
t r i al and t he f act s f ound her e, as wel l as t he l aw, suppor t bot h
t heor i es. The NCAA i s not pr ej udi ced by al t er nat i ve r el i ance on a
monopsony t heor y.
B. Gr oup Li censi ng Mar ket
Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat t he NCAA has r est r ai ned
compet i t i on i n t hr ee speci f i c nat i onal submar ket s of a br oader
nat i onal gr oup l i censi ng mar ket : namel y, t he submar ket s f or gr oup
l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n
( 1) l i ve game t el ecast s, ( 2) vi deogames, and ( 3) game r e-
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page66 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


67

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
br oadcast s, hi ghl i ght cl i ps, and ot her ar chi val f oot age. The
Cour t addr esses each of t hese submar ket s separ at el y.

1. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n Li ve
Game Tel ecast s
As not ed above, t el evi si on net wor ks compet e f or t he r i ght s t o
t el ecast l i ve FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l games. I n
or der t o secur e t hese r i ght s, net wor ks t ypi cal l y pur chase l i censes
t o use t he i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y of t he par t i ci pat i ng school s and
conf er ences dur i ng t he game t el ecast as wel l as t he names, i mages,
and l i kenesses of t he par t i ci pat i ng st udent - at hl et es.
10
Because
st udent - at hl et es ar e not per mi t t ed by NCAA r ul es t o l i cense t he
r i ght s t o use t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses, t he net wor ks
deal excl usi vel y wi t h school s and conf er ences when acqui r i ng t he
st udent - at hl et es’ r i ght s.
As t he Cour t f ound above, i n t he absence of t he NCAA’ s
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on, st udent - at hl et es on
cer t ai n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams woul d be abl e
t o sel l gr oup l i censes f or t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and
l i kenesses t o t el evi si on net wor ks. They woul d ei t her sel l t hose
l i censes t o t he t el evi si on net wor ks di r ect l y or do so t hr ough some
i nt er medi at e buyer - - such as t hei r school or a t hi r d- par t y
l i censi ng company - - whi ch woul d bundl e t he gr oup l i cense wi t h
ot her i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y and per f or mance r i ght s and sel l t he

10

As di scussed i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , when a t hi r d par t y - - such
as a bowl commi t t ee or t he NCAA i t sel f - - has or gani zed a par t i cul ar
at hl et i c event , t he net wor ks may al so pur chase a separ at e l i cense f r om
t hat par t y t o use i t s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y dur i ng t he t el ecast .
Because t hese t r ansact i ons do not i nvol ve t he t r ansf er of r i ght s t o use
st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses, t hey ar e not r el evant
t o t hi s di scussi on.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page67 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


68

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f ul l bundl e of r i ght s t o t he net wor k. Regar dl ess of whet her t he
st udent - at hl et es woul d sel l t hei r gr oup l i censes t o t he net wor ks
di r ect l y or t hr ough some i nt er medi at e buyer , however , a submar ket
f or such gr oup l i censes woul d exi st .
The NCAA deni es t hat such a mar ket exi st s as a mat t er of l aw.
I t ar gues t hat t he Fi r st Amendment and cer t ai n st at e l aws pr ecl ude
st udent - at hl et es f r omasser t i ng any r i ght s of publ i ci t y i n t he use
of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses dur i ng l i ve game t el ecast s.
The Cour t has pr evi ousl y r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument . See Apr i l 11,
2014 Or der at 21. Fur t her mor e, even i f some t el evi si on net wor ks
bel i eved t hat st udent - at hl et es l acked publ i ci t y r i ght s i n t he use
of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses, t hey may have st i l l sought
t o acqui r e t hese r i ght s as a pr ecaut i onar y measur e. Busi nesses
of t en negot i at e l i censes t o acqui r e uncer t ai n r i ght s. See C. B. C.
Di st r i but i on & Mkt g. , I nc. v. Maj or League Basebal l Advanced
Medi a, L. P. , 505 F. 3d 818, 826 ( 8t h Ci r . 2007) ( Col l ot on, J . ,
di ssent i ng) ( “CBC sur el y can ‘ agr ee, ’ as a mat t er of good busi ness
j udgment , t o bar gai n away any uncer t ai n Fi r st Amendment r i ght s
t hat i t may have i n exchange f or t he cer t ai nt y of what i t
consi der s t o be an advant ageous cont r act ual ar r angement . ”) ; Hyni x
Semi conduct or s, I nc. v. Rambus, I nc. , 2006 WL 1991760, at *4 ( N. D.
Cal . ) ( cr edi t i ng exper t t est i mony t hat “a negot i at i ng pat ent ee and
l i censee gener al l y agr ee t o a l ower r oyal t y r at e i f t her e i s
uncer t ai nt y as t o whet her t he pat ent s ar e act ual l y val i d and
i nf r i nged”) . The NCAA’ s ar gument does not under mi ne Pl ai nt i f f s’
evi dence of t he exi st ence of a nat i onal submar ket f or gr oup
l i censes.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page68 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


69

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
That sai d, Pl ai nt i f f s have not i dent i f i ed any har mt o
compet i t i on i n t hi s submar ket . As pr evi ousl y not ed, an “essent i al
el ement of a Sect i on 1 vi ol at i on under t he r ul e of r eason i s
i nj ur y t o compet i t i on i n t he r el evant mar ket . ” Al l i ance Shi pper s,
I nc. v. S. Pac. Tr ansp. Co. , 858 F. 2d 567, 570 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988) .
That i nj ur y must go “beyond t he i mpact on t he cl ai mant ” and r each
“a f i el d of commer ce i n whi ch t he cl ai mant i s engaged. ” Aust i n v.
McNamar a, 979 F. 2d 728, 738 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) ( ci t at i ons and
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Si cor Lt d. v. Cet us Cor p. , 51
F. 3d 848, 854 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) ( “Under t he r ul e of r eason appr oach,
t he pl ai nt i f f must show an i nj ur y t o compet i t i on, r at her t han j ust
an i nj ur y t o pl ai nt i f f ’ s busi ness. ” ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ;
ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s have
shown t hat t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es har mst udent - at hl et es by
depr i vi ng t hemof compensat i on t hat t hey woul d ot her wi se r ecei ve,
t hey have not shown t hat t hi s har mr esul t s f r oma r est r ai nt on
compet i t i on i n t he gr oup l i censi ng mar ket . I n par t i cul ar , t hey
have f ai l ed t o show t hat t he chal l enged r ul es hi nder compet i t i on
among any pot ent i al buyer s or sel l er s of gr oup l i censes.
The sel l er s i n t hi s mar ket woul d be t he st udent - at hl et es.
Pl ai nt i f f s have not pr esent ed any evi dence t o show t hat , i n t he
absence of t he chal l enged r est r ai nt , t eams of st udent - at hl et es
woul d act ual l y compet e agai nst one anot her t o sel l t hei r gr oup
l i censes. I n f act , t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d st r ongl y suggest s
t hat such compet i t i on woul d not occur . Thi s i s because any
net wor k t hat seeks t o t el ecast a par t i cul ar at hl et i c event woul d
have t o obt ai n a gr oup l i cense f r omever y t eamt hat coul d
pot ent i al l y par t i ci pat e i n t hat event . For i nst ance, a net wor k
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page69 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


70

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seeki ng t o t el ecast a conf er ence basket bal l t our nament woul d have
t o obt ai n gr oup l i censes f r omal l of t he t eams i n t hat conf er ence.
Under t hose ci r cumst ances, none of t he t eams i n t he conf er ence
woul d compet e agai nst each ot her as sel l er s of gr oup l i censes
because t he gr oup l i censes woul d const i t ut e per f ect compl ement s:
t hat i s, ever y gr oup l i cense woul d have t o be sol d i n or der f or
any si ngl e gr oup l i cense t o have val ue. See gener al l y Her ber t
Hovenkamp, “I mpl ement i ng Ant i t r ust ’ s Wel f ar e Goal s, ” 81 For dhamL.
Rev. 2471, 2487 ( 2013) ( “Per f ect compl ement s ar e goods t hat ar e
i nvar i abl y used t oget her - - or , mor e t echni cal l y, si t uat i ons i n
whi ch one good has no val ue unl ess i t can be consumed t oget her
wi t h t he ot her good. ”) . At t he same t i me, t he t eams i n t hat
conf er ence woul d never have t o compet e wi t h t eams out si de of t he
conf er ence because t hose t eams - - as non- par t i ci pant s i n t he
conf er ence t our nament - - woul d not be abl e t o sel l t hei r gr oup
l i censes wi t h r espect t o t hat event i n t he f i r st pl ace. Thus, i n
t hi s scenar i o, t eams of st udent - at hl et es woul d never act ual l y
compet e agai nst each ot her as sel l er s of gr oup l i censes, even i f
t he chal l enged NCAA r ul es no l onger exi st ed.
The same out come woul d r esul t whenever any net wor k sought t o
t el ecast any ot her FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l event .
Al t hough t he speci f i c set of gr oup l i censes r equi r ed f or each
event woul d var y, t he l ack of compet i t i on among st udent - at hl et e
t eams woul d r emai n const ant : i n ever y case, t he net wor k woul d need
t o acqui r e gr oup l i censes f r oma speci f i c set of t eams, none of
whi ch woul d have any i ncent i ve t o compet e ei t her agai nst each
ot her or agai nst any t eams whose gr oup l i censes wer e not r equi r ed
f or t he t el ecast . These condi t i ons woul d hol d r egar dl ess of
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page70 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


71

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whet her t he st udent - at hl et e t eams sol d t hei r gr oup l i censes t o t he
t el evi si on net wor ks di r ect l y or t hr ough some i nt er medi ar y, such as
t hei r school s, because t he demand f or gr oup l i censes woul d be
di ct at ed pr i mar i l y by t he i dent i t y of t he t eams el i gi bl e t o
par t i ci pat e i n each event . To t he ext ent t hat ent i r e conf er ences
mi ght compet e agai nst each ot her i n or der t o secur e a speci f i c
t el ecast i ng cont r act wi t h a par t i cul ar net wor k, t he chal l enged
NCAA r ul es do not i nhi bi t t hi s t ype of compet i t i on. Conf er ences
ar e al r eady f r ee t o compet e agai nst each ot her i n t hi s way. So,
t oo, ar e any i ndi vi dual pai r s of school s whose t eams ar e schedul ed
t o pl ay agai nst each ot her i n speci f i c r egul ar season games. Li ke
t he conf er ences, t hese pai r s may f r eel y compet e agai nst ot her
pai r s of school s whose games ar e schedul ed f or t he same t i me i n
or der t o secur e a cont r act wi t h what ever net wor ks can show games
dur i ng t hat t i me sl ot .
11
I n any event , Pl ai nt i f f s have not
pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t hat st udent - at hl et e t eams
woul d act ual l y compet e agai nst each ot her i n any of t hese ways i f
t hey wer e per mi t t ed t o sel l gr oup l i censes t o use t hei r names,
i mages, and l i kenesses.
Pl ai nt i f f s have al so f ai l ed t o i dent i f y any si t uat i on i n
whi ch buyer s of gr oup l i censes mi ght compet e agai nst each ot her .
As not ed above, t her e ar e t wo set s of pot ent i al buyer s i n t hi s
mar ket : t he t el evi si on net wor ks, whi ch woul d buy gr oup l i censes
di r ect l y f r omt he st udent - at hl et e t eams, and i nt er medi at e buyer s,

11
The evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al suggest s t hat most t el ecast i ng
cont r act s, even f or r egul ar season games, ar e negot i at ed at t he
conf er ence- wi de l evel - - not t he i ndi vi dual t eaml evel . Never t hel ess,
t he Cour t not es t hat t he chal l enged r ul es woul d not suppr ess compet i t i on
i n t hi s mar ket even i f cont r act s t o t el ecast r egul ar season games wer e
negot i at ed at t he i ndi vi dual t eaml evel .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page71 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


72

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whi ch woul d bundl e t hose l i censes wi t h ot her r i ght s and sel l t hose
bundl es of r i ght s t o t he net wor ks. The f i r st set of pot ent i al
buyer s - - t he t el evi si on net wor ks - - al r eady compet e f r eel y
agai nst one anot her f or t he r i ght s t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve game t el ecast s. Al t hough t hey may
not be abl e t o pur chase t hese r i ght s di r ect l y f r omt he st udent -
at hl et es, t hey never t hel ess compet e t o acqui r e t hese r i ght s f r om
ot her sour ces, such as school s and conf er ences. The f act t hat t he
net wor ks do not compet e t o pur chase t hese r i ght s di r ect l y f r omt he
st udent - at hl et es i s due t o t he assur ances by t he school s,
conf er ences, and NCAA t hat t hey have t he aut hor i t y t o gr ant t hese
r i ght s. Such assur ances mi ght const i t ut e conver si on by t he
school s of t he st udent - at hl et es’ r i ght s, or ot her wi se be unl awf ul ,
but t hey ar e not ant i compet i t i ve because t hey do not i nhi bi t any
f or mof compet i t i on t hat woul d ot her wi se exi st .
12
Al l owi ng
st udent - at hl et es t o seek compensat i on f or gr oup l i censes woul d not
i ncr ease t he number of t el evi si on net wor ks i n t he mar ket or
ot her wi se enhance compet i t i on among t hem.
Nor woul d i t i ncr ease compet i t i on among any pot ent i al
i nt er medi at e buyer s i n t hi s mar ket , such as t hi r d- par t y l i censi ng
compani es and school s. Thi r d- par t y l i censi ng compani es ar e, l i ke
t el evi si on net wor ks, al r eady f r ee t o compet e agai nst one anot her
t o acqui r e t he r i ght s t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and
l i kenesses i n l i ve game t el ecast s. They may be bar r ed f r om

12
Pl ai nt i f f s vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed al l of t hei r cl ai ms agai nst t he
NCAA f or “i ndi vi dual damages, di sgor gement of pr of i t s, and an
account i ng. ” Docket No. 198, St i p. Di smi ssal , at 2. They al so
di smi ssed t hei r cl ai ms f or unj ust enr i chment . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t
does not consi der t hese cl ai ms her e.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page72 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


73

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pur chasi ng t hese r i ght s di r ect l y f r omt he st udent - at hl et es but
t hey ar e not bar r ed f r omcompet i ng t o acqui r e t hese r i ght s t hr ough
ot her channel s.
Unl i ke t el evi si on net wor ks and t hi r d- par t y l i censi ng
compani es, school s do not cur r ent l y compet e f or gr oup l i censes t o
use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n l i ve game
t el ecast s. Thi s l ack of compet i t i on, however , does not st em
sol el y f r omt he chal l enged r est r ai nt . Even i f t he r est r ai nt wer e
l i f t ed, each school woul d st i l l onl y be abl e t o pur chase gr oup
l i censes f r omi t s own st udent - at hl et es because t hose ar e t he onl y
l i censes t hat t he school coul d bundl e wi t h i t s own i nt el l ect ual
pr oper t y r i ght s f or sal e t o a net wor k. No school woul d be abl e t o
pur chase a mar ket abl e gr oup l i cense f r omst udent - at hl et es at
anot her school . To t he ext ent t hat school s do compet e agai nst one
anot her f or t he r i ght s t o use i ndi vi dual st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses, t hey do so onl y as sel l er s i n t he col l ege
educat i on mar ket or consumer s i n t he mar ket f or r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c
ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s. They do not compet e as buyer s i n
t he mar ket f or gr oup l i censes.
Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o show t hat t he
chal l enged NCAA r ul es har mcompet i t i on i n t hi s submar ket .
Al t hough t hey have pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh t hat
t hey wer e i nj ur ed by t he NCAA’ s conduct , as not ed above, “[ i ] nj ur y
t o an ant i t r ust pl ai nt i f f i s not enough t o pr ove i nj ur y t o
compet i t i on. ” O. S. C. Cor p. v. Appl e Comput er , I nc. , 792 F. 2d
1464, 1469 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) . Pl ai nt i f f s have shown an i nj ur y t o
compet i t i on onl y i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket or t he mar ket f or
r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page73 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


74

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n
Vi deogames
Pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh
t hat , absent t he chal l enged NCAA r ul es, a nat i onal submar ket woul d
exi st i n whi ch vi deogame devel oper s woul d compet e f or gr oup
l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
Thi s submar ket i s anal ogous t o t he l i ve t el ecast i ng submar ket
di scussed above. As i n t hat submar ket , t he sel l er s of gr oup
l i censes i n t he vi deogame submar ket woul d be st udent - at hl et es on
cer t ai n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams. The buyer s
woul d ei t her be vi deogame devel oper s or i nt er medi at e buyer s who
woul d bundl e t he st udent - at hl et es’ r i ght s wi t h ot her par t i es’
r i ght s and sel l t hose bundl es t o vi deogame devel oper s.
The NCAA cont ends t hat , even i f st udent - at hl et es wer e
per mi t t ed t o r ecei ve compensat i on f or t he use of t hei r names,
i mages, and l i kenesses, t hi s submar ket woul d not exi st . I t not es
t hat i t and some of i t s member conf er ences r ecent l y deci ded t o
st op l i censi ng t hei r i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y f or use i n vi deogames.
Wi t hout access t o t hi s i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y, t he NCAA ar gues,
vi deogame devel oper s cannot devel op mar ket abl e vi deogames and,
t hus, woul d not seek t o pur chase gr oup l i censes f r omst udent -
at hl et es.
Thi s ar gument over st at es t he si gni f i cance of t he deci si ons of
t he NCAA and some of i t s member conf er ences not t o l i cense t hei r
i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y t o vi deogame devel oper s. To begi n wi t h,
vi deogame devel oper s do not need t he i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y r i ght s
of bot h t he NCAA and al l of i t s conf er ences i n or der t o pr oduce a
col l ege spor t s vi deogame. I f a suf f i ci ent number of school s and
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page74 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


75

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conf er ences wer e wi l l i ng t o l i cense t hei r i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y
f or use i n vi deogames, a submar ket f or st udent - at hl et es’ gr oup
l i censes woul d l i kel y exi st . I ndeed, Mr . Li nzner speci f i cal l y
t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat EA r emai ns i nt er est ed i n acqui r i ng t he
r i ght s t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses and
woul d seek t o acqui r e t hemi f not f or t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es
and t he pr esent l i t i gat i on. Thi s t est i mony suggest s t hat t he
r ecent deci si ons of t he NCAA and some of i t s conf er ences not t o
l i cense t hei r i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y has not per manent l y el i mi nat ed
t he demand f or gr oup l i censes t o use st udent - at hl et es’ names,
i mages, and l i kenesses.
13
Accor di ngl y, t hese deci si ons - - whi ch
coul d have been adopt ed due t o t hi s l i t i gat i on and coul d be
r ever sed at any t i me - - do not est abl i sh t he l ack of a vi deogame
submar ket .
Never t hel ess, Pl ai nt i f f s have not i dent i f i ed any i nj ur y t o
compet i t i on wi t hi n t hi s submar ket . J ust as i n t he l i ve
t el ecast i ng submar ket , t he ul t i mat e buyer s i n t hi s submar ket - -
vi deogame devel oper s - - woul d need t o acqui r e gr oup l i censes f r om
a speci f i c set of t eams i n or der t o cr eat e t hei r pr oduct . Thi s
set mi ght i ncl ude al l of t he t eams wi t hi n Di vi si on I , al l of t he
t eams wi t hi n t he maj or conf er ences, or some ot her set of t eams

13
The NCAA’ s ot her ar gument - - t hat vi deogame devel oper s woul d not
need t o acqui r e gr oup l i censes because t hei r use of st udent - at hl et es’
names, i mages, and l i kenesses i s pr ot ect ed under t he Fi r st Amendment - -
was r ej ect ed by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ear l i er i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. I n r e
NCAA St udent - At hl et e Name & Li keness Li censi ng Li t i g. , 724 F. 3d 1268,
1284 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( concl udi ng t hat “EA’ s use of t he l i kenesses of
col l ege at hl et es l i ke Samuel Kel l er i n i t s vi deo games i s not , as a
mat t er of l aw, pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment ”) ; see al so Har t v.
El ect r oni c Ar t s, I nc. , 717 F. 3d 141, 170 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) ( hol di ng t hat
“t he NCAA Foot bal l 2004, 2005 and 2006 games at i ssue i n t hi s case do
not suf f i ci ent l y t r ansf or mAppel l ant ’ s i dent i t y t o escape t he r i ght of
publ i ci t y cl ai m”) .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page75 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


76

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t hat t he vi deogame devel oper bel i eved woul d be necessar y t o
pr oduce a mar ket abl e pr oduct . Regar dl ess of whi ch t eams wer e
i ncl uded wi t hi n t hat set , t hose t eams woul d not compet e agai nst
each ot her as sel l er s of gr oup l i censes, even i n t he absence of
t he chal l enged r ul es, because t hey woul d al l shar e an i nt er est i n
ensur i ng t hat t he vi deogame devel oper acqui r ed each of t he gr oup
l i censes r equi r ed t o cr eat e i t s pr oduct . These t eams woul d al so
not compet e agai nst any t eams out si de of t he set because t he
vi deogame devel oper det er mi ned t hat t hose ot her t eams’ gr oup
l i censes wer e not r equi r ed t o pr oduce t he vi deogame. I ndeed,
compet i t i on bet ween t eams ( or conf er ences) i s even l ess l i kel y i n
t he vi deogame submar ket t han t he l i ve t el ecast i ng submar ket
because vi deogame devel oper s - - unl i ke t el evi si on net wor ks - - ar e
not const r ai ned by t he number of gr oup l i censes t hat t hey coul d
use t o pr oduce t hei r pr oduct . The evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al
demonst r at es t hat vi deogame compani es coul d, and of t en di d,
f eat ur e near l y ever y FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eam
i n t hei r vi deogames. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, compet i t i on among
i ndi vi dual t eams and conf er ences t o sel l gr oup l i censes i s
ext r emel y unl i kel y. And, t o t he ext ent t hat i t happens ( or woul d
happen) , i t i s not r est r ai ned by t he chal l enged NCAA r est r i ct i ons
on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on. Thus, j ust as wi t h t he l i ve
t el ecast i ng submar ket , t he chal l enged r ul es do not suppr ess
compet i t i on i n t hi s submar ket .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page76 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


77

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3. Submar ket f or Gr oup Li censes t o Use St udent -
At hl et es’ Names, I mages, and Li kenesses i n Game Re-
Br oadcast s, Hi ghl i ght Cl i ps, and Ot her Ar chi val
Foot age
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es i mpose
r est r ai nt s on a nat i onal submar ket f or gr oup l i censes t o use
st udent - at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses i n game r e-
br oadcast s, hi ghl i ght cl i ps, and ot her ar chi val game f oot age, bot h
f or ent er t ai nment and t o adver t i se pr oduct s. However , t hey have
not pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t hat t he NCAA has
i mposed any r est r ai nt s i n t hi s submar ket . As f ound above, t he
undi sput ed evi dence shows t hat t he NCAA has desi gnat ed a t hi r d-
par t y agent t o negot i at e and manage al l l i censi ng r el at ed t o i t s
ar chi val f oot age. That t hi r d- par t y agent , T3Medi a, i s expr essl y
pr ohi bi t ed f r oml i censi ng any f oot age t hat f eat ur es cur r ent
st udent - at hl et es. I t i s al so cont r act ual l y r equi r ed t o obt ai n t he
r i ght s t o use t he names, i mages, and l i kenesses of any f or mer
st udent - at hl et es who appear i n f oot age t hat i t has l i censed.
Thus, under t hi s ar r angement , no cur r ent or f or mer st udent -
at hl et es ar e act ual l y depr i ved of any compensat i on f or game r e-
br oadcast s or ot her ar chi val f oot age t hat t hey woul d ot her wi se
r ecei ve i n t he absence of t he chal l enged NCAA r ul es. What ’ s mor e,
even i f Pl ai nt i f f s had made such a showi ng, t hey have not
pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show an i nj ur y t o compet i t i on i n
t hi s submar ket . I n or der t o l i cense al l of t he f oot age i n t he
NCAA’ s ar chi ves, T3Medi a woul d have t o obt ai n a gr oup l i cense f r om
ever y t eamt hat has ever compet ed i n FBS or Di vi si on I . These
t eams, once agai n, woul d have no i ncent i ve t o compet e agai nst each
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page77 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


78

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ot her i n sel l i ng t hei r gr oup l i censes. Enj oi ni ng t he NCAA f r om
enf or ci ng i t s chal l enged r ul es woul d not change t hat .
I I I . Pr ocompet i t i ve J ust i f i cat i ons
Because Pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show
t hat t he NCAA’ s r ul es i mpose a r est r ai nt on compet i t i on i n t he
col l ege educat i on mar ket , t he Cour t must det er mi ne whet her t hat
r est r ai nt i s j ust i f i ed. I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, i t must
consi der whet her t he “ant i compet i t i ve aspect s of t he chal l enged
pr act i ce out wei gh i t s pr ocompet i t i ve ef f ect s. ” Pal adi n
Associ at es, 328 F. 3d at 1156.
The NCAA has asser t ed f our pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i ons f or
i t s r ul es bar r i ng st udent - at hl et es f r omr ecei vi ng compensat i on f or
t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses: ( 1) t he
pr eser vat i on of amat eur i smi n col l ege spor t s; ( 2) pr omot i ng
compet i t i ve bal ance among FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l
t eams; ( 3) t he i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs; and ( 4) t he
abi l i t y t o gener at e gr eat er out put i n t he r el evant mar ket s. The
Cour t consi der s each of t hese pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i ons i n
t ur n.
A. Amat eur i sm
As not ed i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , t he NCAA asser t s t hat i t s
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on ar e necessar y t o
pr eser ve t he amat eur t r adi t i on and i dent i t y of col l ege spor t s. I t
cont ends t hat t hi s t r adi t i on and i dent i t y cont r i but e t o t he
popul ar i t y of col l ege spor t s and hel p di st i ngui sh t hemf r om
pr of essi onal spor t s and ot her f or ms of ent er t ai nment i n t he
mar ket pl ace. For suppor t , i t poi nt s t o hi st or i cal evi dence of i t s
commi t ment t o amat eur i sm, r ecent consumer opi ni on sur veys, and
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page78 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


79

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t est i mony f r omvar i ous wi t nesses r egar di ng popul ar per cept i ons of
col l ege spor t s. Al t hough t hi s evi dence coul d j ust i f y some l i mi t ed
r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on, i t does not j ust i f y
t he speci f i c r est r i ct i ons chal l enged i n t hi s case. I n par t i cul ar ,
i t does not j ust i f y t he NCAA’ s sweepi ng pr ohi bi t i on on FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s r ecei vi ng any
compensat i on f or t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
Al t hough t he NCAA has ci t ed t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n
Boar d of Regent s as suppor t f or i t s amat eur i smj ust i f i cat i on, i t s
r el i ance on t he case r emai ns unavai l i ng. As expl ai ned i n pr evi ous
or der s, Boar d of Regent s addr essed l i mi t s on t el evi si on
br oadcast i ng, not payment s t o st udent - at hl et es, and “does not
st and f or t he sweepi ng pr oposi t i on t hat st udent - at hl et es must be
bar r ed, bot h dur i ng t hei r col l ege year s and f or ever t her eaf t er ,
f r omr ecei vi ng any monet ar y compensat i on f or t he commer ci al use of
t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses. ” Oct . 25, 2013 Or der at 15.
The Supr eme Cour t ’ s suggest i on i n Boar d of Regent s t hat , i n or der
t o pr eser ve t he qual i t y of t he NCAA’ s pr oduct , st udent - at hl et es
“must not be pai d, ” 468 U. S. at 102, was not based on any f act ual
f i ndi ngs i n t he t r i al r ecor d and di d not ser ve t o r esol ve any
di sput ed i ssues of l aw. I n f act , t he st at ement r an count er t o t he
asser t i ons of t he NCAA’ s own counsel i n t he case, who st at ed
dur i ng or al ar gument t hat t he NCAA was not r el yi ng on amat eur i sm
as a pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on and “mi ght be abl e t o get mor e
vi ewer s and so on i f i t had semi - pr of essi onal cl ubs r at her t han
amat eur cl ubs. ” Or al Ar g. Tr . at 25, Boar d of Regent s, 468 U. S.
85. He f ur t her ar gued, “When t he NCAA says, we ar e r unni ng
pr ogr ams of amat eur f oot bal l , i t i s pr obabl y r educi ng i t s net
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page79 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


80

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pr of i t s. ” I d. ( emphasi s added) ; see al so i d. ( “The NCAA mi ght be
abl e t o i ncr ease i t s i nt ake i f i t abol i shed or r educed t he
academi c st andar ds t hat i t s pl ayer s must meet . ”) . Pl ai nt i f f s have
al so pr esent ed ampl e evi dence her e t o show t hat t he col l ege spor t s
i ndust r y has changed subst ant i al l y i n t he t hi r t y year s si nce Boar d
of Regent s was deci ded. See gener al l y Banks v. NCAA, 977 F. 2d
1081, 1099 ( 7t h Ci r . 1992) ( Fl aum, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and
di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( “The NCAA cont i nues t o pur vey, even i n t hi s
case, an out moded i mage of i nt er col l egi at e spor t s t hat no l onger
j i bes wi t h r eal i t y. The t i mes have changed. ”) . Accor di ngl y, t he
Supr eme Cour t ’ s i nci dent al phr ase i n Boar d of Regent s does not
est abl i sh t hat t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r est r ai nt s on compensat i on ar e
pr ocompet i t i ve and wi t hout l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves.
The hi st or i cal r ecor d t hat t he NCAA ci t es as evi dence of i t s
l ongst andi ng commi t ment t o amat eur i smi s unper suasi ve. Thi s
r ecor d r eveal s t hat t he NCAA has r evi sed i t s r ul es gover ni ng
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on numer ous t i mes over t he year s,
somet i mes i n si gni f i cant and cont r adi ct or y ways. Rat her t han
evi nci ng t he associ at i on’ s adher ence t o a set of cor e pr i nci pl es,
t hi s hi st or y document s how mal l eabl e t he NCAA’ s def i ni t i on of
amat eur i smhas been si nce i t s f oundi ng.
The associ at i on’ s cur r ent r ul es demonst r at e t hat , even t oday,
t he NCAA does not consi st ent l y adher e t o a si ngl e def i ni t i on of
amat eur i sm. A Di vi si on I t enni s r ecr ui t can pr eser ve hi s amat eur
st at us even i f he accept s t en t housand dol l ar s i n pr i ze money t he
year bef or e he enr ol l s i n col l ege. A Di vi si on I t r ack and f i el d
r ecr ui t , however , woul d f or f ei t hi s at hl et i c el i gi bi l i t y i f he di d
t he same. Si mi l ar l y, an FBS f oot bal l pl ayer may mai nt ai n hi s
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page80 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


81

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amat eur st at us i f he accept s a Pel l gr ant t hat br i ngs hi s t ot al
f i nanci al ai d package above t he cost of at t endance. But t he same
f oot bal l pl ayer woul d no l onger be an amat eur i f he wer e t o
decl i ne t he Pel l gr ant and, i nst ead, r ecei ve an equi val ent sumof
money f r omhi s school f or t he use of hi s name, i mage, and l i keness
dur i ng l i ve game t el ecast s. Such i nconsi st enci es ar e not
i ndi cat i ve of “cor e pr i nci pl es. ”
Nonet hel ess, some r est r i ct i ons on compensat i on may st i l l
ser ve a l i mi t ed pr ocompet i t i ve pur pose i f t hey ar e necessar y t o
mai nt ai n t he popul ar i t y of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l .
I f t he chal l enged r est r ai nt s act ual l y pl ay a subst ant i al r ol e i n
maxi mi zi ng consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct s - -
speci f i cal l y, FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t el ecast s,
r e- br oadcast s, t i cket sal es, and mer chandi se - - t hen t he
r est r i ct i ons woul d be pr ocompet i t i ve. See Boar d of Regent s, 468
U. S. at 120 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat “maxi mi z[ i ng] consumer demand f or
t he pr oduct ” i s a l egi t i mat e pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on) .
At t empt i ng t o make t hi s showi ng, t he NCAA r el i es on consumer
opi ni on sur veys, i ncl udi ng t he sur vey i t commi ssi oned f r omDr .
Denni s speci f i cal l y f or t hi s case. As not ed above, however , t hi s
sur vey - - whi ch cont ai ned sever al met hodol ogi cal f l aws and di d not
ask r espondent s about t he speci f i c r est r ai nt s chal l enged i n t hi s
case - - does not pr ovi de r el i abl e evi dence t hat consumer i nt er est
i n FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l depends on t he NCAA’ s
cur r ent r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on. Fur t her ,
Pl ai nt i f f s of f er ed evi dence demonst r at i ng t hat such sur veys ar e
i nevi t abl y a poor t ool f or accur at el y pr edi ct i ng consumer
behavi or . Dr . Rascher hi ghl i ght ed var i ous pol l s and sur veys whi ch
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page81 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


82

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
document ed wi despr ead publ i c opposi t i on t o r ul e changes t hat
ul t i mat el y l ed t o i ncr eased compensat i on f or pr of essi onal basebal l
pl ayer s and Ol ympi c at hl et es even as Maj or League Basebal l and t he
I OC wer e exper i enci ng per i ods of massi ve r evenue gr owt h. Thi s
evi dence counsel s st r ongl y agai nst gi vi ng any si gni f i cant wei ght
t o Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey r esul t s. What Dr . Denni s’ s sur vey does
suggest i s t hat t he publ i c’ s at t i t udes t owar d st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on depend heavi l y on t he l evel of compensat i on t hat
st udent - at hl et es woul d r ecei ve. Thi s i s consi st ent wi t h t he
t est i mony of t he NCAA’ s own wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng Mr . Mui r and Mr .
Pi l son, who bot h i ndi cat ed t hat smal l er payment s t o st udent -
at hl et es woul d bot her t heml ess t han l ar ger payment s.
Ul t i mat el y, t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al suggest s t hat
consumer demand f or FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l - r el at ed
pr oduct s i s not dr i ven by t he r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on but i nst ead by ot her f act or s, such as school l oyal t y
and geogr aphy. Mr . Pi l son expl ai ned t hat col l ege spor t s t end t o
be mor e popul ar i n pl aces wher e col l ege t eams ar e l ocat ed.
Si mi l ar l y, Ms. Pl onsky not ed t hat popul ar i nt er est i n col l ege
spor t s was dr i ven pr i nci pal l y by t he l oyal t y of l ocal f ans and
al umni . She t est i f i ed, “I woul d vent ur e t o say t hat i f we [ UT]
of f er ed a t i ddl ywi nks t eam, t hat woul d somehow be popul ar wi t h
some segment of whoever l oves our uni ver si t y. ” Tr i al Tr . 1414: 25-
1415: 2.
The Cour t t her ef or e concl udes t hat t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on pl ay a l i mi t ed r ol e i n dr i vi ng
consumer demand f or FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l - r el at ed
pr oduct s. Al t hough t hey mi ght j ust i f y a r est r i ct i on on l ar ge
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page82 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


83

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
payment s t o st udent - at hl et es whi l e i n school , t hey do not j ust i f y
t he r i gi d pr ohi bi t i on on compensat i ng st udent - at hl et es, i n t he
pr esent or i n t he f ut ur e, wi t h any shar e of l i censi ng r evenue
gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
B. Compet i t i ve Bal ance
The NCAA asser t s t hat i t s chal l enged r ul es ar e j ust i f i ed by
t he need t o mai nt ai n t he cur r ent l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance
among i t s FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams i n or der t o
mai nt ai n t hei r popul ar i t y. Thi s Cour t has pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed
t hat a spor t s l eague’ s ef f or t s t o achi eve t he opt i mal compet i t i ve
bal ance among i t s t eams may ser ve a pr ocompet i t i ve pur pose i f
pr omot i ng such compet i t i ve bal ance i ncr eases demand f or t he
l eague’ s pr oduct . See Apr i l 11, 2014 Or der at 33; Amer i can
Needl e, 560 U. S. at 204 ( “We have r ecogni zed, f or exampl e, ‘ t hat
t he i nt er est i n mai nt ai ni ng a compet i t i ve bal ance’ among ‘ at hl et i c
t eams i s l egi t i mat e and i mpor t ant . ’ ” ( ci t i ng Boar d of Regent s, 468
U. S. at 117) ) . As t he Supr eme Cour t has expl ai ned, t he
“hypot hesi s t hat l egi t i mat es t he mai nt enance of compet i t i ve
bal ance as a pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on under t he Rul e of Reason
i s t hat equal compet i t i on wi l l maxi mi ze consumer demand f or t he
pr oduct . ” Boar d of Regent s, 468 U. S. at 119- 20.
Her e, t he NCAA has not pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show
t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on act ual l y
have any ef f ect on compet i t i ve bal ance, l et al one pr oduce an
opt i mal l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance. The consensus among spor t s
economi st s who have st udi ed t he i ssue, as summar i zed by Dr s. Nol l
and Rascher , i s t hat t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r est r i ct i ons on
compensat i on do not have any ef f ect on compet i t i ve bal ance.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page83 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


84

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Al t hough Dr . Rubi nf el d di sagr eed wi t h t hi s concl usi on, he coul d
not i dent i f y anot her economi st who shar ed hi s vi ew and di d not
of f er any t est i mony t o r ebut t he speci f i c f i ndi ngs of t he academi c
l i t er at ur e ci t ed by Dr s. Nol l and Rascher . When t he Cour t asked
hi mwhet her hi s opi ni ons wer e based on any academi c l i t er at ur e,
Dr . Rubi nf el d di r ect ed t he Cour t t o t he economi c ar t i cl es ci t ed i n
hi s most r ecent r epor t on compet i t i ve bal ance. But none of t he
ar t i cl es ci t ed i n t hat r epor t f ound t hat t he NCAA’ s r est r i ct i ons
on st udent - at hl et e compensat i on pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance. I n
f act , t he onl y ar t i cl e hi s r epor t ci t ed t hat act ual l y exami ned
compet i t i ve bal ance i n col l ege spor t s was a 2004 ar t i cl e by Kat i e
Bai r d, whi ch Dr . Nol l quot ed dur i ng hi s t est i mony. As Dr . Nol l
t est i f i ed, t hat ar t i cl e concl uded, “‘ [ L] i t t l e evi dence suppor t s
t he cl ai mt hat NCAA r egul at i ons hel p l evel t he pl ayi ng f i el d. At
best , t hey appear t o have had a ver y l i mi t ed ef f ect , and at wor st
t hey have ser ved t o st r engt hen t he posi t i on of t he domi nant
t eams. ’ ” Tr i al Tr . 230: 18- 231: 11 ( quot i ng Bai r d ar t i cl e) . Dr .
Rubi nf el d’ s i ndependent anal ysi s of compet i t i ve bal ance was al so
unper suasi ve because i t di d not show a causal l i nk bet ween t he
NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es and compet i t i ve bal ance. Mor e
i mpor t ant l y, hi s anal ysi s di d not show t hat consumer demand f or
t he NCAA’ s pr oduct woul d decr ease i f FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I
basket bal l t eams wer e l ess compet i t i vel y bal anced t han t hey
cur r ent l y ar e. As f ound above, t he popul ar i t y of col l ege spor t s
i s dr i ven pr i mar i l y by f act or s such as school l oyal t y and
geogr aphy. Nei t her of t hese i s dependent on compet i t i ve bal ance.
I n i t s post - t r i al br i ef , t he NCAA ci t es a passage f r omBoar d
of Regent s whi ch st at es t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hat case f ound
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page84 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


85

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t hat t he NCAA’ s “r est r i ct i ons desi gned t o pr eser ve amat eur i sm”
ser ved t o pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance. 468 U. S. at 119 ( ci t i ng
di st r i ct cour t or der , 546 F. Supp. 1276, 1296, 1309- 10 ( W. D. Okl a.
1982) ) . That f act ual f i ndi ng i s not bi ndi ng on t hi s Cour t and,
mor e i mpor t ant l y, i s cont r ar y t o t he evi dence pr esent ed i n t hi s
case. The r ecor d i n t hi s case shows t hat r evenues f r omFBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l have gr own exponent i al l y si nce
Boar d of Regent s was deci ded and t hat , as a r esul t of t hi s gr owt h,
many school s have i nvest ed mor e heavi l y i n t hei r r ecr ui t i ng
ef f or t s, at hl et i c f aci l i t i es, dor ms, coachi ng, and ot her ameni t i es
desi gned t o at t r act t he t op st udent - at hl et es. Thi s t r end, whi ch
sever al wi t nesses r ef er r ed t o as an “ar ms r ace, ” has l i kel y
negat ed what ever equal i zi ng ef f ect t he NCAA’ s r est r ai nt s on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on mi ght have once had on compet i t i ve
bal ance. These changed f act ual ci r cumst ances - - i n addi t i on t o
t he weal t h of academi c st udi es concl udi ng t hat t he r est r ai nt s on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on do not pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance - -
pr ecl ude t hi s Cour t f r omgi vi ng any si gni f i cant wei ght t o t he
di st r i ct cour t ’ s f act ual f i ndi ngs i n Boar d of Regent s.
Accor di ngl y, t he NCAA may not r el y on compet i t i ve bal ance
her e as a j ust i f i cat i on f or t he chal l enged r est r ai nt . I t s
evi dence i s not suf f i ci ent t o show t hat i t must cr eat e a
par t i cul ar l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance among FBS f oot bal l and
Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams i n or der t o maxi mi ze consumer demand
f or i t s pr oduct . Nor i s i t suf f i ci ent t o show t hat t he chal l enged
r est r ai nt act ual l y hel ps i t achi eve t he opt i mal l evel of
compet i t i ve bal ance.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page85 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


86

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. I nt egr at i on of Academi cs and At hl et i cs
The NCAA asser t s t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on hel p educat e st udent - at hl et es and i nt egr at e t hemi nt o
t hei r school s’ academi c communi t i es. I t ar gues t hat t he
i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs ser ves t o i mpr ove t he
qual i t y of educat i onal ser vi ces pr ovi ded t o st udent - at hl et es i n
t he r est r ai ned col l ege educat i on mar ket .
14
Cour t s have r ecogni zed
t hat t hi s goal - - i mpr ovi ng pr oduct qual i t y - - may be a l egi t i mat e
pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on. See Count y of Tuol umne v. Sonor a
Cmt y. Hosp. , 236 F. 3d 1148, 1160 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat
i mpr ovi ng pr oduct qual i t y may be a l egi t i mat e pr ocompet i t i ve
j ust i f i cat i on) ; Law, 134 F. 3d at 1023 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat
“i ncr easi ng out put , cr eat i ng oper at i ng ef f i ci enci es, maki ng a new
pr oduct avai l abl e, enhanci ng ser vi ce or qual i t y, and wi deni ng
consumer choi ce” may be pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i ons) .
The evi dence pr esent ed by t he NCAA suggest s t hat i nt egr at i ng
st udent - at hl et es i nt o t he academi c communi t i es at t hei r school s
i mpr oves t he qual i t y of t he educat i onal ser vi ces t hat t hey
r ecei ve. As not ed above, sever al uni ver si t y admi ni st r at or s
t est i f i ed about t he benef i t s t hat st udent - at hl et es der i ve f r om
par t i ci pat i ng i n t hei r school s’ academi c communi t i es. Pl ai nt i f f s
conf i r med t hat t hey appr eci at ed r ecei vi ng t hese educat i onal

14
I n i t s post - t r i al br i ef , t he NCAA ar gues t hat t he i nt egr at i on of
academi cs and at hl et i cs al so i ncr eases consumer demand f or i t s ot her
pr oduct - - FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l games. I t pr esent ed
scant evi dence at t r i al t o suppor t t hi s asser t i on. I n any event , t o t he
ext ent t hat t he NCAA cont ends t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on i ncr ease consumer demand f or FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l games, t he Cour t addr esses t hat ar gument i n i t s di scussi on of
t he NCAA’ s asser t ed pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on of amat eur i sm.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page86 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


87

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
benef i t s when t hey wer e st udent - at hl et es, whi l e Dr . Heckman
t est i f i ed t hat t hese benef i t s al so car r y l ong- t er mval ue.
That sai d, t he NCAA has not shown t hat t he speci f i c
r est r ai nt s chal l enged i n t hi s case ar e necessar y t o achi eve t hese
benef i t s. I ndeed, st udent - at hl et es woul d r ecei ve many of t he same
educat i onal benef i t s descr i bed above r egar dl ess of whet her or not
t he NCAA per mi t t ed t hemt o r ecei ve compensat i on f or t he use of
t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses. They woul d cont i nue t o
r ecei ve schol ar shi ps, f or i nst ance, and woul d al most cer t ai nl y
cont i nue t o r ecei ve t ut or i ng and ot her academi c suppor t ser vi ces.
As l ong as t he NCAA cont i nued t o moni t or school s’ academi c
pr ogr ess r at es and r equi r e t hat st udent - at hl et es meet cer t ai n
academi c benchmar ks - - a r equi r ement t hat i s not chal l enged
her e - - t he school s’ i ncent i ves t o suppor t t hei r st udent - at hl et es
academi cal l y woul d r emai n unchanged. Si mi l ar l y, t he st udent -
at hl et es’ own i ncent i ves t o per f or mwel l academi cal l y woul d r emai n
t he same, par t i cul ar l y i f t hey wer e r equi r ed t o meet t hese
academi c r equi r ement s as a condi t i on of r ecei vi ng compensat i on f or
t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses. Such a
r equi r ement mi ght even st r engt hen st udent - at hl et es’ i ncent i ves t o
f ocus on school wor k.
As f ound above, t he onl y way i n whi ch t he chal l enged r ul es
mi ght f aci l i t at e t he i nt egr at i on of academi cs and at hl et i cs i s by
pr event i ng st udent - at hl et es f r ombei ng cut of f f r omt he br oader
campus communi t y. Li mi t ed r est r i ct i ons on st udent - at hl et e
compensat i on may hel p school s achi eve t hi s nar r ow pr ocompet i t i ve
goal . As wi t h t he NCAA’ s amat eur i smj ust i f i cat i on, however , t he
NCAA may not use t hi s goal t o j ust i f y i t s sweepi ng pr ohi bi t i on on
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page87 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


88

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any st udent - at hl et e compensat i on, pai d now or i n t he f ut ur e, f r om
l i censi ng r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of st udent - at hl et es’
names, i mages, and l i kenesses.
D. I ncr eased Out put
The NCAA ar gues t hat t he chal l enged r est r ai nt i ncr eases t he
out put of i t s pr oduct . Cour t s have r ecogni zed t hat i ncr eased
out put may be a l egi t i mat e pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i on. See
Boar d of Regent s, 468 U. S. at 114; Law, 134 F. 3d at 1023.
Her e, t he NCAA ar gues t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons on st udent -
at hl et e compensat i on i ncr ease t he number of oppor t uni t i es f or
school s and st udent - at hl et es t o par t i ci pat e i n Di vi si on I spor t s,
whi ch ul t i mat el y i ncr eases t he number of FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on
I basket bal l games pl ayed. I t cl ai ms t hat i t s r ul es i ncr ease t hi s
out put i n t wo ways: f i r st , by at t r act i ng school s wi t h a
“phi l osophi cal commi t ment t o amat eur i sm” t o compet e i n Di vi si on I
and, second, by enabl i ng school s t hat ot her wi se coul d not af f or d
t o compet e i n Di vi si on I t o do so. Docket No. 279, NCAA Post -
Tr i al Br i ef , at 24. Nei t her of t hese ar gument s i s per suasi ve.
The NCAA has not pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t hat a
si gni f i cant number of school s choose t o compet e i n Di vi si on I
because of a “phi l osophi cal commi t ment t o amat eur i sm. ” As not ed
i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , some Di vi si on I conf er ences have r ecent l y
sought gr eat er aut onomy f r omt he NCAA speci f i cal l y so t hat t hey
coul d enact t hei r own r ul es, i ncl udi ng new schol ar shi p r ul es.
These ef f or t s suggest t hat many cur r ent Di vi si on I school s ar e
commi t t ed nei t her t o t he NCAA’ s cur r ent r est r i ct i ons on st udent -
at hl et e compensat i on nor t o t he i dea t hat al l Di vi si on I school s
must awar d schol ar shi ps of t he same val ue.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page88 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


89

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Si mi l ar l y, t he NCAA’ s ar gument t hat t he cur r ent r ul es enabl e
some school s t o par t i ci pat e i n Di vi si on I t hat ot her wi se coul d not
af f or d t o do so i s unsuppor t ed by t he r ecor d. Nei t her t he NCAA
nor i t s member conf er ences r equi r e hi gh- r evenue school s t o
subsi di ze t he FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams at
l ower - r evenue school s. Thus, t o t he ext ent t hat school s achi eve
any cost savi ngs by not payi ng t hei r st udent - at hl et es, t her e i s no
evi dence t hat t hose cost savi ngs ar e bei ng used t o f und addi t i onal
t eams or schol ar shi ps. I n any event , Pl ai nt i f f s ar e not seeki ng
an i nj unct i on r equi r i ng school s t o pr ovi de compensat i on t o t hei r
st udent - at hl et es - - t hey ar e seeki ng an i nj unct i on t o per mi t
school s t o do so. School s t hat cannot af f or d t o r e- al l ocat e any
por t i on of t hei r at hl et i c budget f or t hi s pur pose woul d not be
f or ced t o do so. Ther e i s t hus no r eason t o bel i eve t hat any
school s’ at hl et i c pr ogr ams woul d be dr i ven t o f i nanci al r ui n or
woul d l eave Di vi si on I i f ot her school s wer e per mi t t ed t o pay
t hei r st udent - at hl et es. The hi gh coaches’ sal ar i es and r api dl y
i ncr easi ng spendi ng on t r ai ni ng f aci l i t i es at many school s suggest
t hat t hese school s woul d, i n f act , be abl e t o af f or d t o of f er
t hei r st udent - at hl et es a l i mi t ed shar e of t he l i censi ng r evenue
gener at ed f r omt hei r use of t he st udent - at hl et es’ own names,
i mages, and l i kenesses. Accor di ngl y, t he NCAA may not r el y on
i ncr eased out put as a j ust i f i cat i on f or t he chal l enged r est r ai nt
her e.
I V. Less Rest r i ct i ve Al t er nat i ves
As out l i ned above, t he NCAA has pr oduced suf f i ci ent evi dence
t o suppor t an i nf er ence t hat some ci r cumscr i bed r est r i ct i ons on
st udent - at hl et e compensat i on may yi el d pr ocompet i t i ve benef i t s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page89 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


90

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fi r st , i t pr esent ed evi dence suggest i ng t hat pr event i ng school s
f r ompayi ng FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l pl ayer s l ar ge
sums of money whi l e t hey ar e enr ol l ed i n school may ser ve t o
i ncr ease consumer demand f or i t s pr oduct . Second, i t pr esent ed
evi dence suggest i ng t hat t hi s r est r i ct i on may f aci l i t at e i t s
member school s’ ef f or t s t o i nt egr at e st udent - at hl et es i nt o t he
academi c communi t i es on t hei r campuses, t her eby i mpr ovi ng t he
qual i t y of educat i onal ser vi ces t hey of f er . Thus, because t he
NCAA has met i t s bur den under t he r ul e of r eason t o t hat ext ent ,
t he bur den shi f t s back t o Pl ai nt i f f s t o show t hat t hese
pr ocompet i t i ve goal s can be achi eved i n “‘ ot her and bet t er
ways’ ” - - t hat i s, t hr ough “‘ l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves. ’ ”
Bhan v. NME Hospi t al s, I nc. , 929 F. 2d 1404, 1410 n. 4 ( 9t h Ci r .
1991) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
“As par t of t hei r bur den t o show t he exi st ence of l ess
r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves, [ ] pl ai nt i f f s must al so show t hat ‘ an
al t er nat i ve i s subst ant i al l y l ess r est r i ct i ve and i s vi r t ual l y as
ef f ect i ve i n ser vi ng t he l egi t i mat e obj ect i ve wi t hout
si gni f i cant l y i ncr eased cost . ’ ” Count y of Tuol omne, 236 F. 3d at
1159 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed; emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . I n addi t i on, any
l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves “shoul d ei t her be based on act ual
exper i ence i n anal ogous si t uat i ons el sewher e or el se be f ai r l y
obvi ous. ” Phi l l i p E. Ar eeda & Her ber t Hovenkamp, Ant i t r ust Law
¶ 1913b ( 3d ed. 2006) . A def endant may show t hat a pr of f er ed l ess
r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve i s not f easi bl e wi t h “evi dence t hat t he
pr of f er ed al t er nat i ve has been t r i ed but f ai l ed, t hat i t i s
equal l y or mor e r est r i ct i ve, or ot her wi se unl awf ul . ” I d.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page90 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


91

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A cour t need not addr ess t he avai l abi l i t y of l ess r est r i ct i ve
al t er nat i ves f or achi evi ng a pur por t ed pr ocompet i t i ve goal “when
t he def endant f ai l s t o meet i t s own obl i gat i on under t he r ul e of
r eason bur den- shi f t i ng pr ocedur e. ” I d. ; see al so Law, 134 F. 3d at
1024 n. 16 ( “Because we hol d t hat t he NCAA di d not est abl i sh
evi dence of suf f i ci ent pr ocompet i t i ve benef i t s, we need not
addr ess quest i on of whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e abl e t o show t hat
compar abl e pr ocompet i t i ve benef i t s coul d be achi eved t hr ough
vi abl e, l ess ant i compet i t i ve means. ”) . Thus, i n t he pr esent case,
t he Cour t does not consi der whet her Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr oposed l ess
r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves woul d pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance or
i ncr ease out put because t he NCAA f ai l ed t o meet i t s bur den wi t h
r espect t o t hese st at ed pr ocompet i t i ve j ust i f i cat i ons.
15
Rat her ,
t he Cour t ’ s i nqui r y f ocuses onl y on whet her Pl ai nt i f f s have
i dent i f i ed any l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves f or bot h pr eser vi ng
t he popul ar i t y of t he NCAA’ s pr oduct by pr omot i ng i t s cur r ent

15
The Cour t not es, however , t hat t he NCAA coul d easi l y adopt
sever al l ess r est r i ct i ve r ul es i f i t wi shed t o i ncr ease compet i t i ve
bal ance or out put . Wi t h r espect t o compet i t i ve bal ance, f or i nst ance,
t he NCAA coul d adopt a mor e equal r evenue di st r i but i on f or mul a. As
not ed above, i t s cur r ent f or mul a pr i mar i l y r ewar ds t he school s t hat
al r eady have t he l ar gest at hl et i c budget s. Thi s uneven di st r i but i on of
r evenues r uns count er t o t he associ at i on’ s st at ed goal of pr omot i ng
compet i t i ve bal ance. See, e. g. ,

Sal vi no, 542 F. 3d at 333 ( not i ng t hat
“di spr opor t i onat e di st r i but i on of l i censi ng i ncome woul d f ost er a
compet i t i ve i mbal ance” among Maj or League Basebal l t eams) ; Smi t h v. Pr o
Foot bal l , I nc. , 593 F. 2d 1173, 1188 ( D. C. Ci r . 1978) ( “The l east
r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve of al l , of cour se, woul d be f or t he NFL t o
el i mi nat e t he dr af t ent i r el y and empl oy r evenue- shar i ng t o equal i ze t he
t eams’ f i nanci al r esour ces [ as] a met hod of pr eser vi ng ‘ compet i t i ve
bal ance’ ni cel y i n har mony wi t h t he l eague’ s sel f - pr ocl ai med ‘ j oi nt -
vent ur e’ st at us. ”) . As f or t he NCAA’ s st at ed goal of i ncr easi ng out put ,
t he NCAA al r eady has t he power t o achi eve t hi s goal i n a much mor e
di r ect way: by amendi ng i t s cur r ent r equi r ement s f or ent r y i nt o Di vi si on
I or i ncr easi ng t he number of at hl et i c schol ar shi ps Di vi si on I school s
ar e per mi t t ed t o of f er .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page91 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


92

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under st andi ng of amat eur i smand i mpr ovi ng t he qual i t y of
educat i onal oppor t uni t i es f or st udent - at hl et es by i nt egr at i ng
academi cs and at hl et i cs.
As set f or t h i n t he f i ndi ngs of f act , Pl ai nt i f f s have
i dent i f i ed t wo l egi t i mat e l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves f or
achi evi ng t hese goal s. Fi r st , t he NCAA coul d per mi t FBS f oot bal l
and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s t o awar d st i pends t o st udent -
at hl et es up t o t he f ul l cost of at t endance, as t hat t er mi s
def i ned i n t he NCAA’ s byl aws, t o make up f or any shor t f al l i n i t s
gr ant s- i n- ai d. Second, t he NCAA coul d per mi t i t s school s t o hol d
i n t r ust l i mi t ed and equal shar es of i t s l i censi ng r evenue t o be
di st r i but ed t o i t s st udent - at hl et es af t er t hey l eave col l ege or
t hei r el i gi bi l i t y expi r es. The NCAA coul d al so pr ohi bi t school s
f r omf undi ng t he st i pends or payment s hel d i n t r ust wi t h anyt hi ng
ot her t han r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t he st udent - at hl et es’
own names, i mages, and l i kenesses. Per mi t t i ng school s t o awar d
t hese st i pends and def er r ed payment s woul d i ncr ease pr i ce
compet i t i on among FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s
i n t he col l ege educat i on mar ket ( or , al t er nat i vel y, i n t he mar ket
f or r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and l i censi ng r i ght s) wi t hout
under mi ni ng t he NCAA’ s st at ed pr ocompet i t i ve obj ect i ves.
The NCAA not es t hat Dr . Nol l di d not di scuss a syst emof
hol di ng payment s i n t r ust f or st udent - at hl et es i n hi s exper t
r epor t s or dur i ng hi s t est i mony. However , t hi s does not bar
Pl ai nt i f f s f r ompr oposi ng such a syst emas a l ess r est r i ct i ve
al t er nat i ve her e. As not ed above, cour t s may consi der any l ess
r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves t hat ar e “based on act ual exper i ence i n
anal ogous si t uat i ons el sewher e” or ot her wi se “f ai r l y obvi ous. ”
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page92 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


93

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ar eeda & Hovenkamp, Ant i t r ust Law ¶ 1913b. Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr oposal
f or hol di ng payment s i n t r ust f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t hi s cat egor y.
One of Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t s, Dr . Rascher , di scussed t he cr eat i on of
a t r ust i n hi s openi ng r epor t , whi ch was di scl osed t o t he NCAA
mor e t han ei ght mont hs bef or e t r i al . See Sept . 2013 Rascher
Repor t ¶¶ 80, 86. Al t hough t he Cour t does not r el y on t he cont ent
of Dr . Rascher ’ s r epor t her e, i t not es t hat t he r epor t pr ovi ded
t he NCAA wi t h ampl e not i ce of t hi s pr oposal .
16
Pl ai nt i f f s’ counsel

16
The Cour t al so not es t hat , over t he past t wo decades, numer ous
comment at or s have suggest ed t hat t he NCAA coul d hol d payment s i n t r ust
f or i t s st udent - at hl et es wi t hout vi ol at i ng gener al l y accept ed
under st andi ngs of amat eur i smused by ot her spor t s or gani zat i ons. See,
e. g. , Sean Hanl on & Ray Yasser , “‘ J . J . Mor r i son’ and Hi s Ri ght of
Publ i ci t y Lawsui t Agai nst t he NCAA, ” 15 Vi l l . Spor t s & Ent . L. J . 241,
294 ( 2008) ( “Sear chi ng f or a sol ut i on t o t he pr obl emposed by t hi s
Comment , comment at or s have suggest ed a ‘ have- your - cake- and- eat - i t - t oo’
appr oach wher eby a t r ust woul d be cr eat ed, al l owi ng st udent - at hl et es t he
abi l i t y t o pr eser ve t hei r amat eur st at us whi l e t hei r at hl et i c
el i gi bi l i t y r emai ns. The money gener at ed t hr ough t he use of t he
commer ci al val ue of t hei r i dent i t y woul d be pl aced i n a t r ust unt i l t he
expi r at i on of t hei r at hl et i c el i gi bi l i t y. ”) ; Kr i st i ne Muel l er , “No
Cont r ol over Thei r Ri ght s of Publ i ci t y: Col l ege At hl et es Lef t Si t t i ng
t he Bench, ” 2 DePaul J . Spor t s L. & Cont emp. Pr obs. 70, 87- 88 ( 2004)
( “One suggest i on put f or t h i s t o cr eat e a t r ust f or t he at hl et es, whi ch
woul d become avai l abl e t o t hemupon gr aduat i on. . . . [ Thi s pr oposal ]
al l ows t he at hl et es t o r eap t he f i nanci al benef i t s of t hei r l abor s,
whi l e mai nt ai ni ng t he f ocus on amat eur at hl et i cs. ”) ; Vl adi mi r P. Bel o,
“The Shi r t s Of f Thei r Backs: Col l eges Get t i ng Away wi t h Vi ol at i ng t he
Ri ght of Publ i ci t y, ” 19 Hast i ngs Comm. & Ent . L. J . 133, 155 ( 1996)
( “Shoul d t he NCAA hol d st eadf ast l y t o i t s not i ons of amat eur i smand
r esi st payment t o t he at hl et es, t he t r ust f und al t er nat i ve coul d be a
f ai r and r easonabl e compr omi se. Fi r st of al l , i t coul d be l i mi t ed t o
cer t ai n mer chandi si ng moni es, such as t hose associ at ed wi t h sel l i ng game
j er seys or any ot her r evenue f r ommar ket i ng a st udent - at hl et e’ s name and
l i keness. ”) ; St ephen M. Schot t , “Gi ve ThemWhat They Deser ve:
Compensat i ng t he St udent - At hl et e f or Par t i ci pat i on i n I nt er col l egi at e
At hl et i cs, ” 3 Spor t s Law. J . 25, 45 ( 1996) ( “Revenue f r omt el evi si on
r i ght s, t i cket s sal es, and donat i ons f r omboost er s coul d be used t o
est abl i sh t hese t r ust f unds. Over al l , some t ype of t r ust f und may
pr ovi de t he best al t er nat i ve way of compensat i ng t he st udent - at hl et e and
pr eser vi ng t he educat i onal obj ect i ves of t he NCAA. ”) ; Kennet h L.
Shr opshi r e, “Legi sl at i on f or t he Gl or y of Spor t : Amat eur i smand
Compensat i on, ” 1 Set on Hal l J . Spor t L. 7, 27 ( 1991) ( “Fr oman NCAA
est abl i shed t r ust f und t he st udent at hl et e coul d r ecei ve a st udent l i f e
st i pend. ”) .
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page93 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


94

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
al so r ai sed t he i ssue r epeat edl y dur i ng t r i al and sever al of t he
NCAA’ s key wi t nesses - - i ncl udi ng Dr . Emmer t , Mr . Pi l son, and Dr .
Rubi nf el d - - wer e speci f i cal l y gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o r espond t o
t he i dea. None of t hese wi t nesses pr ovi ded a per suasi ve
expl anat i on as t o why t he NCAA coul d not i mpl ement a t r ust payment
syst eml i ke t he one Pl ai nt i f f s pr opose. The Cour t t her ef or e
concl udes t hat a nar r owl y t ai l or ed t r ust payment syst em- - whi ch
woul d al l ow school s t o of f er t hei r FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
basket bal l r ecr ui t s a l i mi t ed and equal shar e of t he l i censi ng
r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r names, i mages, and
l i kenesses - - const i t ut es a l ess r est r i ct i ve means of achi evi ng
t he NCAA’ s st at ed pr ocompet i t i ve goal s.
V. Summar y of Li abi l i t y Det er mi nat i ons
For t he r easons set f or t h above, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he
NCAA’ s chal l enged r ul es unr easonabl y r est r ai n t r ade i n vi ol at i on
of § 1 of t he Sher man Act . Speci f i cal l y, t he associ at i on’ s r ul es
pr ohi bi t i ng st udent - at hl et es f r omr ecei vi ng any compensat i on f or
t he use of t hei r names, i mages, and l i kenesses r est r ai ns pr i ce
compet i t i on among FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s
as suppl i er s of t he uni que combi nat i on of educat i onal and at hl et i c
oppor t uni t i es t hat el i t e f oot bal l and basket bal l r ecr ui t s seek.
Al t er nat i vel y, t he r ul es r est r ai n t r ade i n t he mar ket wher e t hese
school s compet e t o acqui r e r ecr ui t s’ at hl et i c ser vi ces and
l i censi ng r i ght s.
The chal l enged r ul es do not pr omot e compet i t i ve bal ance among
FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l t eams, l et al one pr oduce a
l evel of compet i t i ve bal ance necessar y t o sust ai n exi st i ng
consumer demand f or t he NCAA’ s FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page94 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


95

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
basket bal l - r el at ed pr oduct s. Nor do t he r ul es ser ve t o i ncr ease
t he NCAA’ s out put of Di vi si on I school s, st udent - at hl et es, or
f oot bal l and basket bal l games. Al t hough t he r ul es do yi el d some
l i mi t ed pr ocompet i t i ve benef i t s by mar gi nal l y i ncr easi ng consumer
demand f or t he NCAA’ s pr oduct and i mpr ovi ng t he educat i onal
ser vi ces pr ovi ded t o st udent - at hl et es, Pl ai nt i f f s have i dent i f i ed
l ess r est r i ct i ve ways of achi evi ng t hese benef i t s.
I n par t i cul ar , Pl ai nt i f f s have shown t hat t he NCAA coul d
per mi t FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l school s t o use t he
l i censi ng r evenue gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r st udent -
at hl et es’ names, i mages, and l i kenesses t o f und st i pends cover i ng
t he cost of at t endance f or t hose st udent - at hl et es. I t coul d al so
per mi t school s t o hol d l i mi t ed and equal shar es of t hat l i censi ng
r evenue i n t r ust f or t he st udent - at hl et es unt i l t hey l eave school .
Nei t her of t hese pr act i ces woul d under mi ne consumer demand f or t he
NCAA’ s pr oduct s nor hi nder i t s member school s’ ef f or t s t o educat e
st udent - at hl et es.
VI . Remedy
“The sever al di st r i ct cour t s of t he Uni t ed St at es ar e
i nvest ed wi t h j ur i sdi ct i on t o pr event and r est r ai n vi ol at i ons” of
§ 1 of t he Sher man Act . 15 U. S. C. § 4. Al t hough t he NCAA asser t s
t hat Pl ai nt i f f s must make a showi ng of i r r epar abl e har mi n or der
t o obt ai n per manent i nj unct i ve r el i ef her e, i t f ai l ed t o ci t e any
aut hor i t y hol di ng t hat such a showi ng i s r equi r ed i n an act i on
br ought under t he Sher man Act . The Sher man Act i t sel f gi ves
di st r i ct cour t s t he aut hor i t y t o enj oi n vi ol at i ons of i t s
pr ovi si ons and does not i mpose any addi t i onal r equi r ement s on
pl ai nt i f f s who successf ul l y est abl i sh t he exi st ence of an
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page95 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


96

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unr easonabl e r est r ai nt of t r ade. Accor di ngl y, t hi s Cour t wi l l
ent er an i nj unct i on t o r emove any unr easonabl e el ement s of t he
r est r ai nt f ound i n t hi s case.
17

Consi st ent wi t h t he l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ves f ound, t he
Cour t wi l l enj oi n t he NCAA f r omenf or ci ng any r ul es or byl aws t hat
woul d pr ohi bi t i t s member school s and conf er ences f r omof f er i ng
t hei r FBS f oot bal l or Di vi si on I basket bal l r ecr ui t s a l i mi t ed
shar e of t he r evenues gener at ed f r omt he use of t hei r names,
i mages, and l i kenesses i n addi t i on t o a f ul l gr ant - i n- ai d. The
i nj unct i on wi l l not pr ecl ude t he NCAA f r omi mpl ement i ng r ul es
cappi ng t he amount of compensat i on t hat may be pai d t o st udent -
at hl et es whi l e t hey ar e enr ol l ed i n school ; however , t he NCAA wi l l
not be per mi t t ed t o set t hi s cap bel ow t he cost of at t endance, as
t he t er mi s def i ned i n i t s cur r ent byl aws.
The i nj unct i on wi l l al so pr ohi bi t t he NCAA f r omenf or ci ng any
r ul es t o pr event i t s member school s and conf er ences f r omof f er i ng
t o deposi t a l i mi t ed shar e of l i censi ng r evenue i n t r ust f or t hei r
FBS f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l r ecr ui t s, payabl e when t hey
l eave school or t hei r el i gi bi l i t y expi r es. Al t hough t he
i nj unct i on wi l l per mi t t he NCAA t o set a cap on t he amount of
money t hat may be hel d i n t r ust , i t wi l l pr ohi bi t t he NCAA f r om
set t i ng a cap of l ess t han f i ve t housand dol l ar s ( i n 2014 dol l ar s)
f or ever y year t hat t he st udent - at hl et e r emai ns academi cal l y

17
I n a f oot not e t o i t s post - t r i al br i ef , t he NCAA ar gues f or t he
f i r st t i me t hat “a number of st at es have made i t i l l egal t o of f er
[ st udent - at hl et es] compensat i on beyond a schol ar shi p or gr ant - i n- ai d t o
ent i ce t hemt o at t end a par t i cul ar school . ” NCAA Post - Tr i al Br i ef at
35. However , al l of t he st at ut es i t ci t es f or suppor t expr essl y exempt
col l eges and uni ver si t i es or di st i ngui sh bet ween t he pr ohi bi t ed payment s
and schol ar shi ps, f i nanci al ai d, and ot her gr ant s.
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page96 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
el i gi bl e t o compet e. The NCAA’ s wi t nesses st at ed t hat t hei r
concer ns about st udent - at hl et e compensat i on woul d be mi ni mi zed or
negat ed i f compensat i on was capped at a f ew t housand dol l ar s per
year . Thi s i s al so compar abl e t o t he amount of money t hat t he
NCAA per mi t s st udent - at hl et es t o r ecei ve i f t hey qual i f y f or a
Pel l gr ant and t he amount t hat t enni s pl ayer s may r ecei ve pr i or t o
enr ol l ment . None of t he ot her evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al
suggest s t hat t he NCAA’ s l egi t i mat e pr ocompet i t i ve goal s wi l l be
under mi ned by al l owi ng such a modest payment . School s may of f er
l ower amount s of def er r ed compensat i on i f t hey choose but may not
unl awf ul l y conspi r e wi t h each anot her i n set t i ng t hese amount s.
To ensur e t hat t he NCAA may achi eve i t s goal of i nt egr at i ng
academi cs and at hl et i cs, t he i nj unct i on wi l l not pr ecl ude t he NCAA
f r omenf or ci ng i t s exi st i ng r ul es - - or enact i ng new r ul es - - t o
pr event st udent - at hl et es f r omusi ng t he money hel d i n t r ust f or
t hei r benef i t t o obt ai n ot her f i nanci al benef i t s whi l e t hey ar e
st i l l i n school . Fur t her mor e, consi st ent wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s’
r epr esent at i on t hat t hey ar e onl y seeki ng t o enj oi n r est r i ct i ons
on t he shar i ng of gr oup l i censi ng r evenue, t he NCAA may enact and
enf or ce r ul es ensur i ng t hat no school may of f er a r ecr ui t a
gr eat er shar e of l i censi ng r evenue t han i t of f er s any ot her
r ecr ui t i n t he same cl ass on t he same t eam. The amount of
compensat i on school s deci de t o pl ace i n t r ust may var y f r omyear
t o year . Not hi ng i n t he i nj unct i on wi l l pr ecl ude t he NCAA f r om
cont i nui ng t o enf or ce al l of i t s ot her exi st i ng r ul es whi ch ar e
desi gned t o achi eve i t s l egi t i mat e pr ocompet i t i ve goal s. Thi s
i ncl udes i t s r ul es pr ohi bi t i ng st udent - at hl et es f r omendor si ng
commer ci al pr oduct s, set t i ng academi c el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page97 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


98

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pr ohi bi t i ng school s f r omcr eat i ng at hl et e- onl y dor ms, and set t i ng
l i mi t s on pr act i ce hour s. Nor shal l anyt hi ng i n t hi s i nj unct i on
pr ecl ude t he NCAA f r omenf or ci ng i t s cur r ent r ul es l i mi t i ng t he
t ot al number of f oot bal l and basket bal l schol ar shi ps each school
may awar d, whi ch ar e not chal l enged her e.
The i nj unct i on wi l l not be st ayed pendi ng any appeal of t hi s
or der but wi l l not t ake ef f ect unt i l t he st ar t of next FBS
f oot bal l and Di vi si on I basket bal l r ecr ui t i ng cycl e.
CONCLUSI ON
Col l ege spor t s gener at e a t r emendous amount of i nt er est , as
wel l as r evenue and cont r over sy. I nt er est ed par t i es have st r ong
and conf l i ct i ng opi ni ons about t he best pol i ci es t o appl y i n
r egul at i ng t hese spor t s. Bef or e t he Cour t i n t hi s case i s onl y
whet her t he NCAA vi ol at es ant i t r ust l aw by agr eei ng wi t h i t s
member school s t o r est r ai n t hei r abi l i t y t o compensat e Di vi si on I
men’ s basket bal l and FBS f oot bal l pl ayer s any mor e t han t he
cur r ent associ at i on r ul es al l ow. For t he r easons set f or t h above,
t he Cour t f i nds t hat t hi s r est r ai nt does vi ol at e ant i t r ust l aw.
To t he ext ent ot her cr i t i ci sms have been l evel ed agai nst t he
NCAA and col l ege pol i ci es and pr act i ces, t hose ar e not r ai sed and
cannot be r emedi ed based on t he ant i t r ust causes of act i on i n t hi s
l awsui t . I t i s l i kel y t hat t he chal l enged r est r ai nt s, as wel l as
ot her per cei ved i nequi t i es i n col l ege at hl et i cs and hi gher
educat i on gener al l y, coul d be bet t er addr essed as a pol i cy mat t er
by r ef or ms ot her t han t hose avai l abl e as a r emedy f or t he
ant i t r ust vi ol at i on f ound her e. Such r ef or ms and r emedi es coul d
be under t aken by t he NCAA, i t s member school s and conf er ences, or
Congr ess. Be t hat as i t may, t he Cour t wi l l ent er an i nj unct i on,
Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page98 of 99

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t

F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a


99

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i n a separ at e or der , t o cur e t he speci f i c vi ol at i ons f ound i n t hi s
case.
The cl er k shal l ent er j udgment i n f avor of t he Pl ai nt i f f
cl ass. Pl ai nt i f f s shal l r ecover t hei r cost s f r omt he NCAA. The
par t i es shal l not f i l e any post - t r i al mot i ons based on ar gument s
t hat have al r eady been made.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

Dat ed: August 8, 2014
CLAUDI A WI LKEN
Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge

Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document291 Filed08/08/14 Page99 of 99

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful