Law360, New York (October 4, 2015, 4:23 PM EDT) -- In O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 14-16601 (Sept. 30, 2015), an appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on (1) if the NCAA is immune from antitrust scrutiny; and (2) whether increases in monetary benefits to NCAA athletes, both to full cost of attendance limits and cash payments for licensing of athlete intellectual property, are valid alternative means of promoting NCAA amateurism versus the Association's bylaws. As even the most casual consumer of college sports understands, and the Ninth Circuit articulated: "There is real money at issue here." O'Bannon at 34. Further, the import of this decision was not lost on the judges in O'Bannon, who remark throughout the opinion of the far-reaching impact of their words; a very rare commentary by appellate judges, and a not so subtle signal to their fellow circuit judges for en banc consideration or the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari. Scholars of both antitrust and sports law should follow suit....