NCAA wins dismissal of lawsuit over Sandusky fine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Collegiate Athletic Association on Thursday morning won the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging sanctions against Pennsylvania State University for its role in the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal.

The lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett failed to show a violation of federal antitrust law, U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane said in her decision throwing out the case. Corbett said the fines restrained competition in the market for college sports. The NCAA countered in a presentation to the judge last month that Corbett’s arguments were insufficient to serve as the basis of an antitrust claim.

“Each of defendant’s arguments is strong enough to render the governor’s action under antitrust law a Hail Mary pass,” Kane said her 28-page opinion. “These arguments are well-founded in the law and require that the governor’s complaint be dismissed.”

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for Pennsylvania’s Office of the General Counsel, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the ruling. A call to Corbett’s office was referred to General Counsel James Schultz.

Corbett sued the Indianapolis-based NCAA, the governing body for college sports, in January, challenging a $60 million fine levied against the university for its failure to prevent the sexual abuse by Sandusky, a former assistant football coach who was convicted of molesting 10 boys.

The NCAA filed its own suit the following month, accusing Pennsylvania of trying to confiscate the fine under a new law that allows the state to control the use of funds. The law violates the U.S. Constitution and can’t be enforced, the NCAA said in its complaint.

In addition to the fine, the sanctions imposed in July stripped Penn State of 112 football wins from 1998 through 2011 and barred the Nittany Lions from bowl games for four years, matching the longest postseason ban in NCAA history.

Penn State agreed to the penalties and said in January that it was committed to full compliance with the consent decree. The school set aside the first of five payments, of $12 million, toward the NCAA fine in December. The payment was made by the school’s athletics department through an internal loan from the university’s reserves, Penn State said Dec. 20.

Corbett said in January that Penn State President Rodney Erickson was forced to agree to the sanctions under the threat of a death penalty to its football program. The NCAA used Sandusky’s offenses as a pretext to impose unprecedented penalties, the state said in the complaint.

At a hearing in May, lawyers for the state described Penn State’s football program as an “economic powerhouse” generating about $90 million in business in the local community, $5 million in tax revenue and about 2,200 jobs.

The sanctions followed an internal school investigation that faulted legendary football coach Joe Paterno and other school officials for covering up abuse allegations. Paterno, who wasn’t charged with a crime, died of lung cancer in January 2012.

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two other school officials face criminal charges tied to a 2001 abuse allegation against Sandusky.

Sandusky was sentenced in October to a minimum of 30 years in prison for the abuse.

In a poll released Thursday by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 42 percent of Pennsylvania voters said the NCAA sanctions hurt the football program “a great deal.” Corbett, as attorney general, didn’t do enough to investigate the Jerry Sandusky case, 58 percent of voters said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.