The lawsuit by prominent attorney Jeffrey Kessler to allow players to be paid is slowly moving ahead and following a similar playbook to the Ed OBannon case. The Martin Jenkins suit wants the court to allow schools to pay football and mens basketball players based on an open market. The strategy at this stage by the defendants — the NCAA and the FBS conferences — is similar to what transpired in OBannon. One way to avoid the class being certified is for the NCAA and conferences to show theres a conflict between different players in the class thats attempting to be certified as a class action.

In an expert report for the NCAA, economist Janus Ordover predicts that 41.5 percent of FBS football players and 57.1 percent of Division I mens basketball players would be worse off if the NCAA rules restricting payments were lifted. Ordover argues players would be hurt by the substitution effect, meaning more participants would play under the new rules and some players would lose their current scholarship money. Ordover also asserts that some schools couldnt afford the increased salaries and many would abandon their sports programs.

Economist Daniel Rascher, an expert for the plaintiffs, counters in a heavily-redacted report that Ordover has twice incorrectly predicted that cost of attendance payments would divide the marketplace. Raschers report shows that at least 84 percent of FBS schools have decided to provide cost of attendance stipends to players in 2015-16. The market provides strong evidence that schools have found lsquo;many margins on which the school can adjust to pay full COA to its scholarship athletes in the sports in suit, without exiting the market, reducing other class members compensation, or creating class conflict, Rascher wrote.

The certification hearing will occur either on July 23 or Oct. 1. The date depends on whether US District Judge Claudia Wilken allows certain expert reports to be submitted, resulting in the NCAA and conferences having an opportunity to respond.

article source