Why a Win for the Plaintiffs in the O'Bannon Case Will Not Destroy College Sports as the NCAA Suggests

NCAA leaders have argued both in court and through the media that a win for the plaintiffs in the NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (f/k/a O'Bannon v. NCAA) would "destroy college sports for the majority" -- I clam that I find to be disingenuous.

With that said, it is my pleasure to announce publication of the first draft of my newest law review article, "The Future of Amateurism after Antitrust Scrutiny."  This article explains why a plaintiffs' victory in the NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation would not truly destroy either the competitive balance or financial viability of college sports.

Some of the points expressed in the article include the following:

• The college sports industry already lacks year-to-year competitive balance.
• The college sports industry already lacks seasonal competitive balance.
• Lack of competitive balance does not truly translate into poor attendance or revenues.
• There are less restrictive ways to protect competitive balance in college sports.
• College sports fans do not truly care if student-athletes are unpaid.
• Title IX arguments are simply red herrings.
• There is enough revenue to go around, even after free market negotiations with student-athletes.

This article is only a "first draft," so I would appreciate any comments or feedback. 

My previous article on the NCAA's concerted practices, "A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law," went to print last month in Case Western Reserve Law Review.  Reader feedback was truly helpful for me in fine-tuning that piece.