Ncaa

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Chief Judge THOMAS.

OPINION

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , prohibits “[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” For more than a century, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has prescribed rules governing the eligibility of athletes at its more than 1,000 member colleges and universities. Those rules prohibit student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NILs). The question presented in this momentous case is whether the NCAA’s rules are subject to the antitrust laws and, if so, whether they are an unlawful restraint of trade.

After a bench trial and in a thorough opinion, the district court concluded that *1053 the NCAA’s compensation rules were an unlawful restraint of trade. It then enjoined the NCAA from prohibiting its member schools from giving student-athletes scholarships up to the full cost of attendance at their respective schools and up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation, to be held in trust for student-athletes until after they leave college. As far as we are aware, the district court’s…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I largely agree with all but one of the majority’s conclusions. 1 I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court clearly erred in ordering the NCAA to permit up to $5,000 in deferred compensation above student-athletes’ full cost of attendance.

I

We review the district court’s determinations of fact for clear error. We are not permitted to “review the evidence de novo *1080 and freely substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge.” United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F.2d 544, 549 (9th Cir.1971). Rather, the clear error standard “is significantly deferential, and we will accept the lower court’s findings of fact unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 848-49 (9th Cir.2004).

There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the award. The district court’s conclusion that the proposed alternative restraint satisfied the Rule of Reason was based on testimony from at least four experts-including three experts presented by the NCAA-that providing student-athletes with small…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD C. O’BANNON, JR., On Nos. 14-16601 Behalf of Himself and All Others 14-17068 Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-03329- v. CW

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC

ASSOCIATION, AKA The NCAA, OPINION Defendant-Appellant,

and

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.;

COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,

AKA CLC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 17, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed September 30, 2015 O’BANNON V. NCAA

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judge and Gordon J. Quist,* Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bybee; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Chief Judge Thomas

SUMMARY**

Antitrust

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in an antitrust suit regarding the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the…