NCAA cites 1984 Supreme Court case in O'Bannon appeal

An attorney for the NCAA cited a 1984 ruling from the Supreme Court in defense of the sanctioning body's definition of amateurism in front of a federal appeals court on Tuesday.

In August, a judge ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon case, which challenges the NCAA's definition of amateurism. Plaintiffs contend that the NCAA doesn't have the right to prevent players from being compensated for the use of their name, image and likenesses.

Tuesday, the NCAA appealed in an hour-long hearing that featured 30-minute arguments from both sides. The NCAA, via former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, brought up the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, a case that primarily centered around the television rights for college sports – and one that helped spur the ubiquity of college football on television.

While the case didn't go the NCAA's way, the NCAA cited (both Tuesday and previously) a line in the majority opinion that says in order to "preserve the character and the quality of the 'product,' athletes must not be paid," and required to attend class.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, the judge who ruled on the initial case, said college sports had changed dramatically since the 1984 ruling. She said schools should set aside no fewer than $5,000 per season for each athlete plus money to cover cost of attendance expenses. The money would be put in a trust for players to be withdrawn after a player's eligibility expires.

From CBS Sports:

Judge Jay Bybee said the question of $5,000 per year in trust for athletes “feels like we've crossed the line … and it has crossed into some theoretical line of pay for play.” Bybee also questioned how deferred payments could be enforced.

“Does that mean it has to come out of a particular fund? Does that mean the NCAA has to say NIL revenues weren't so great this year, so you don't get that this year?” Bybee said. “I'm a little puzzled by how it's enforceable.” O'Bannon attorney Michael Hausfeld pointed to statements by three NCAA witnesses who suggested $5,000 a year would not cross an acceptable line.

A major crux of the NCAA's argument could be defined by one statement from NCAA attorney Seth Waxman, the former U.S. solicitor general: “We define what pay constitutes.”

A decision in the appeal is expected in the coming months.

In Wilken's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, she said the "challenged NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools." Her injuction, however, did not prevent the NCAA from putting a cap on how much players can be compensated for their NILs.

If the ruling holds up – this is likely not to be the final appeal – the trust would go into effect before the 2016-2017 school year.

- - - - - - -

Nick Bromberg is the assistant editor of Dr. Saturday on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at nickbromberg@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter!

Follow @NickBromberg