JENKINS et al v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION et al

  1. March 29, 2018

    NCAA Amateurism Suit Tees Up Conference Autonomy Debate

    Whether college athletics conferences are better suited than the NCAA to set rules for compensating student-athletes could take center stage as the college sports governing body will be forced once again to defend its amateurism rules in federal court after a ruling this week.

  2. March 28, 2018

    NCAA, Athletes On Path To Trial In Pay Cap Antitrust Row

    College athletes and the NCAA will have an opportunity to duke out at trial whether restrictions on player compensation are anti-competitive, according to a California federal court ruling Wednesday that found the Ninth Circuit’s decision in O’Bannon doesn’t wipe out the students’ case.

  3. January 16, 2018

    NCAA, Athletes Both Seek Quick Win In Antitrust Row

    The NCAA and college athletes clashed Tuesday in competing bids for quick wins in multidistrict litigation over the association's allegedly anti-competitive caps on what benefits players can receive, with the NCAA protesting in California federal court that the athletes are taking a piecemeal "whack-a-mole" approach to the litigation.

  4. November 8, 2017

    Players Say NCAA Has O'Bannon Wrong In Scholarship Fight

    College athletes on Tuesday urged a California federal court to reject the NCAA’s bid for a quick win in multidistrict litigation against it and nearly a dozen athletic conferences over allegedly anti-competitive caps on scholarships, hitting back at the association’s reading of the Ninth Circuit’s September 2015 O’Bannon decision.

  5. October 2, 2017

    NCAA Says O’Bannon Thwarts Quick Win Bid In Antitrust Row

    The Ninth Circuit’s September 2015 O’Bannon decision precludes players’ claims in multidistrict litigation against the NCAA and nearly a dozen athletic conferences over allegedly anti-competitive caps on scholarships, the association argued in California federal court Friday, urging the court to grant its summary judgment motion over the players’.

  6. August 14, 2017

    Players Say NCAA 'Amateurism' Is No Defense For Antitrust

    College football and basketball players challenging the NCAA's rules against players' being compensated beyond school attendance costs laid out their case Friday to a California federal judge, ripping the NCAA’s dedication to “amateurism” in college athletics as an invalid defense to the anti-competitive limits on compensation.

  7. August 10, 2017

    NCAA Pay Case Pushes Limits Of Courts As Reform Vehicle

    Long-running litigation against the NCAA over rules prohibiting college football and basketball players from receiving compensation beyond scholarships is raising questions about whether it makes sense to use antitrust law as a means to reform college athletics, attorneys said at an American Bar Association conference Thursday.

  8. August 5, 2016

    NCAA Can't Dodge Student-Athlete Pay Cap Antitrust MDL

    A California federal judge on Friday denied the NCAA’s attempt to dodge a class action from student-athletes fighting against capped compensation, saying the athletes can challenge compensation rules even after last fall's O'Bannon decision said schools don't have to pay beyond the cost of attending college.

  9. June 13, 2016

    College Conferences Failing To Share Docs, Athletes Say

    Student-athletes challenging the NCAA’s rules capping their compensation packages from schools told a California federal court Monday that several major collegiate athletic conferences are reluctant to share documents concerning lucrative television contracts, calling out the Big Ten and Atlantic Coast conferences for refusing to even discuss the document requests.

  10. June 1, 2016

    Student-Athletes Tackle NCAA Bid To Escape Grant-In-Aid MDL

    Student-athletes fighting National Collegiate Athletic Association rules capping their compensation at the cost of attending college asked a California federal judge Tuesday not to nix their antitrust claims, arguing their issues are different from those raised in the landmark O’Bannon case.