O'Bannon gets past the summary judgment stage and it's now set for trial in June
The judge was very skeptical of the NCAA's arguments generally:
"the NCAA has argued in filings that First Amendment protections regarding the broadcast of newsworthy events -- i.e. a college football game -- preclude schools from having to seek permission from athletes for their appearance in game broadcasts. Wilken questioned why the NCAA can then sell exclusive game rights to a network like CBS while at the same time arguing the events are of public domain.
Wilken also expressed skepticism regarding three of the NCAA's five pro-competitive justifications for why its no-pay rule does not violate antitrust laws. Most notably, she expressed a "problem" with the notion that sharing revenue with the athletes would negatively impact competitive balance within college sports. 'Maybe there's a less restrictive alternative?' she wondered. 'Maybe you could enforce more competitive balance by having coaches' salaries addressed.'
One of the NCAA's other justifications is protecting amateurism. Wilken largely skipped past the topic with a dismissive line: "I don't think amateurism is going to be a useful word here."
Judge allows O'Bannon v. NCAA to proceed to trial - College Football - Stewart Mandel - SI.com