Moot Court Case

The rule for determining a motion for directed verdict requires the trial judge and the reviewing court on appeal to look to all of the evidence, taking the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the opponent of the motion and allowing all reasonable inferences from it in his favor. The court must discard all countervailing evidence, and if there is then any dispute as to any material determinative evidence or any doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from the whole evidence, the motion must be denied. Tennessee Farmers Mut.

For example Josh Huff a former wide receiver at the university of Oregon, states, “it’s ok for the NCAA to make money off my name and likeness, but once I go charge people to get in my party it’s a problem.” COLLEGIATE ATHLETES: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NCAA AMATEURISM AND A STUDENT ATHLETE'S RIGHT OF PUBLICITY is an article that explains the unfairness in this situation. Because of his displeasure with the non-compensated and amateurism rule, josh began to shed light on the truth of that student athlete’s right are being violated. The NCAA alone makes millions of revenue of the hard work of these student athletes, names and participation in collegiate athletics. While the only thing justifies the decision, keeping them from being paid is that they already are receiving free education as well as college stipend. Looking at the meaning of amateurism and its purpose this article is to back up student athletes and recognize that their work and role in the NCAA is a little deeper than amateur status. Universities are making money of these students hard work and while the names on the team roster are what generate the demand, the ones in the backgrounds get compensated very handsomely. As stated in this article “The NCAA’s purpose is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.” But this clear line is already crossed when universities allow their students to become personal sales pitches and promotional puppets. See a lot of schools athletic revenue thrives of the backs of these students, literally using the names of these students and their success to uplift their school

As of right now the NCAA owns all the rights of their athletes. By them owning the rights,it prevents the athletes from profiting from their likeness or fame. NCAA gets all the dough, all the profit from using the players fame and likeness, and plus merchandise sales, ticket sales and other marketing aspects.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

Yet the college athlete gets paid nothing to play the game that he or she loves. When students play a sport in college, they become a part of the National College Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA. Any athlete in the NCAA is considered an amateur athlete, which means they cannot make any money from their respective sport. If athletes get paid in any way, it becomes a very serious legal matter. Most often, these cases end with the student being expelled and the university being fined. The NCAA bans their athletes from receiving payment in any way, even when sports are not involved. When discussing this issue, Craig T. Greenlee states the case of Darnell Autry, “In the summer of ’96, Autry, a theatre major who also played football for Northwestern University, was prohibited by NCAA rules from getting paid to appear in a movie shot in Italy” (67). The NCAA does allow student athletes to make money in any way. A debate has ensued. One side says these rules are outdated and need to be changed. Should NCAA student athletes receive compensation for their contributions to their universities?

Imagine being a college football star and finding out that a jersey representing your school with your name and number on the back is not only selling for $110 in stores nationally, but it is profiting higher than some professional sports jerseys. Now, imagine that you as that student-athlete will not be making a single penny off your institution using your name for monetary profit. Why you ask? Because according to the governing body of collegiate sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA, this would be considered an act that would bring an athlete out of his amateur status. Yet, it is okay to exploit that athlete’s talents as if he or she were a professional

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

The NCAA was founded in 1906 and in its own words their duty was “To protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices of the time,” but today the NCAA helps foster an environment that thrives off of doing exactly what they sought to stop. Today college athletes have their likeness used by the NCAA and the schools they attend for profit but do not receive any of the money they help to bring in. The NCAA also uses outdated rules that no longer help college athletes but instead harm them. One of the most glaring and criticized rules is that college athletes are amateurs and therefore must not benefit monetarily off of their talents and fame.

Which is against NCAA rules, athletes are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport. Nor are athletes allowed to work anywhere where there image maybe use to promote business. These amateur athletes have no incentive to stay in college and finish their respective degrees, as many cannot afford to pay for the increasingly expensive college experience. Some even argue, College athletes are being exploited by their schools, which make millions of dollars off of intercollegiate athletics. Everywhere else athletes are paid, so why shouldn’t college students too?

This all started as a conversation about “about video game royalties”; for instance, NCAA football and NCAA basketball (USA). Both games stopped being made due to college players suing because the NCAA was using their names and pictures on the front but were denying to give them any cut. So what does the NCAA do? Use the same stats and ratings just replace the pictures and change the names. Now let's get deeper former A&M superstar QB Johnny “football” Manziel was suspended for “allegedly selling merchandise with his autograph on it” (USA). Apparently “the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind” is against NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.1, (USA). So colleges and the NCAA can use their names and pictures for billboards, advertisements, merchandise, etc; but the person themselves

And N.C.A.A investigation Manziel was handed a silly punishment: a half-game suspension, which he served last Saturday, when the Aggies played their opening game of the season against the Owls of Rice University. The N.C.A.A. said that it found no evidence that he had taken any money, but it imposed the penalty because one of its rules states that players can 't sign autographs for people who are going to try to make money from their signature, even if they reap no reward themselves” (Nocera A.23). Most believe that this rule is ridiculous since the athlete puts in a substantial amount of time and effort to not be able to at least profit from their own name. Which in turn after this ruling created a firestorm of whether the suspension was too lenient for Johnny Manziel, or whether the suspension was actually ridiculous in its own sense. Although former star University of California at Los Angeles star basketball took the use of his image, Los Angeles Times Lee Romney reports “A federal judge here dealt a major blow Friday to the NCAA and its long-held value of amateurism, ruling in an antitrust case that the association 's policies banning athletes from profiting from their own names, images and likenesses "unreasonably restrain trade." (Romney A.1).

Another case was Jeremy Bloom against the NCAA and their amateur ruling. Jeremy Bloom was a highly touted athlete with a scholarship offer from the University of Colorado and his skiing skills landed him on the 2002 Olympic Winter games and the U.S. National and World Cup Championship in mogul skiing within the same year (Freedman, 2003). Bloom also had a series of modeling and entertainment contracts. However the NCAA presented Bloom with a dilemma, if he wanted to play football, he had to cancel his outside contracts. Bloom tried submit a case where he could receive his football scholarship and still benefit from his skiing success. Nonetheless the NCAA amateur model didn’t support Blooms case. According to Freedman (2003) “The NCAA has ruled in Bloom’s case that since he doesn’t receive a salary, his endorsement deals and prize money violate the provision that he can’t make money based on his athletic ability”. Bloom was hard-pressed about giving up his endorsement. He wanted to play football but the only way to pay for his skiing career was through endorsements in which he had many including Oakley, Under Armor among others. The courts final ruling was to uphold the NCAA ruling even though the judge was “expressing his disappointment with the NCAA” (Freedman, 2003). This is another discouraging illustration of the NCAA being covetous. Prospering off

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is one of the biggest sports organizations in the United States. One of the most divisive issues relating to the NCAA over the last several years has been the issue of athlete compensation. There are many sports—particularly football and basketball—that bring in incredible amounts of revenue to colleges across the country; therefore, whether or not athletes should be compensated for their role in college sports has become a topic of debate. While scholarship athletes are already compensated by their access to tutors, meals and a free education, the concept of the student-athlete has deteriorated over time and thus athletes should be able to make money by signing autographs or making public appearances while they are in school. In addition, the big four American professional sports do not give amateurs an opportunity to play aside from Major League Baseball, which funnels athletes to college sports and in turn ushers them into a place where they cannot profit from their athletic ability. The issue is clearly a complex and unethical one. It would be difficult for schools to pay athletes fairly as certain sports would appear entitled to more money based on profitability; however, players should undoubtedly be able to benefit from their athletic prowess by selling merchandise and profiting from their stature in general. The NCAA’s stance hindering players’ ability to sell autographs and other memorabilia is just as important to this

Defendant’s arguments for dismissal, however, must fail even under the substantial compliance doctrine that he wishes the Court to apply. Here, unlike the prisoner in Mourey, it cannot in good conscience be said that Defendant