Law Commons^™

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …

The End Of An Era: The Mounting Challenges To The Ncaa’S Model Of Amateurism, John Niemeyer

Pepperdine Law Review

In the six years between 2006 and 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a nonprofit organization made up of universities, doubled its net assets to its current, unprecedented level of over $566 million. In 2012 alone, the organization retained a $71 million surplus after it disbursed a majority of its revenue to the NCAA member universities. It was able to make this much money largely because of the television revenue earned from the highly popular and entertaining sports of men’s football and men’s basketball. One would think that if a nonprofit organization could retain $71 million at the end …

How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of …

The Nba And The Great Recession: Implications For The Upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement Renegotiation, Matthew J. Parlow

Matthew Parlow