In in the student-athlete likeness antitrust lawsuit, the NCAA further demonstrated a lack of support for the plaintiffs' claims that the NCAA unfairly prevents former student-athletes from selling their name, image or likeness rights. The NCAA makes clear that current student-athletes voluntarily choose to play on broadcast TV and that choice is made without the legal need for a "license" for their appearance.
In its latest papers, which were requested by the Court in connection with the plaintiffs' request to certify a class action, the NCAA again showed that -- contrary to the claims of Ed O'Bannon and others -- there simply is no evidence that NCAA rules or forms are used to prevent former student-athletes from selling their name, image or likeness rights after graduation. As the NCAA has been saying since the beginning of this case, the evidence shows that former student-athletes frequently license, and are paid for, the use of their "collegiate image" after eligibility, and the NCAA does nothing to interfere with or stop this.
The plaintiff's claim also flies in the face of the First Amendment, publicity, and Copyright law, all of which provide that participants in game broadcasts -- whether players, coaches or fans in the stands -- have no legal right in that broadcast to sell to anybody. Further, there are several decades of federal law stemming from the US Supreme Court, in which Courts have repeatedly held that NCAA rules that preserve amateurism do not violate the antitrust laws.
