Athlete Pay - Pay Ban Injunction Stayed
If I'm reading this correctly, a lower court must have issued an injunction requiring the NCAA to lift its ban of paying collegiate athletes. This was appealed, obviously. And the Circuit Court stayed (paused, put on hold) the injunction pending further proceedings.
"The Ninth Circuit agreed Friday to pause an injunction requiring the the National Collegiate Athletic Association to lift its ban on universities compensating male football and basketball players until the court rules on the merits of the antitrust challenge to the policy.
In a brief order the three-judge panel that reviewed the case said it would stay the district court's order, which is set to take effect Aug. 1, to maintain the status quo until it decides the case."
The injunction would have allowed payments for use of athletes' likenesses. The injunction was stayed, so the pay ban remains in place.
Read what I wrote again. We are saying the same thing.
I had to read that first response 5 times, each time thinking "aren't they saying the same thing?"
Then contradicted yourself in a manner I found confusing.
As I recall, the initial ruling regarding this came out about a year ago, and yeah, it wasn't a week or so later before the NCAA appealed it. Of all the issues brought to the forefront in the last few years, this might be one of the more intriguing ones to watch.
I wonder if this has been affirmed or simply allowed to slide if you would have seen one of the first graphic splits between the Power Five and the rest of Division I. Indeed, would there have been any unity even in the Power Five conferences?
Not a litigator... gotta ask the wife what this means.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
That's the really important question.
August 1st, 2015 at 12:06 AM ^