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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.