U.S. court voids NCAA ruling, seeks help on state law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. appeals court asked Indiana’s Supreme Court for guidance in determining whether a National Collegiate Athletic Association’s method of selling tickets to its championship basketball tournament is an illegal lottery.

A three-judge panel of the Chicago-based appeals court Monday reversed its own July ruling that said the NCAA must face a lawsuit by consumers claiming its ticket distribution method violates Indiana law.

“Affording the Indiana Supreme Court the opportunity to interpret the application of the Indiana statutes involved here appears to be the most prudent course of action,” the U.S. judges said.

The Indianapolis-based association sells tickets for its basketball and hockey championships by accepting applications for more tickets than are actually available. In the suit, three states challenged the NCAA practice of keeping a $6 to $10 “handling” fee for each entry, even from unsuccessful applicants.

Keeping the money and awarding some applicants a thing of greater value than its price, the ticket, might violate Indiana’s law barring any entity other than the state from running a lottery, the federal court said in July.

Its decision resurrected a lawsuit filed against the NCAA by residents of New York, Arizona and Oregon, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as class-action status on behalf of anyone who paid the fee since May 1998.

“The NCAA’s process to distribute championship tickets to our fans is legal and fair, and we believe the Indiana Supreme Court will agree after further consideration,” spokesman Erik Christianson said in an e-mailed statement.

Christianson and consumers’ attorney Robert B. Carey each said the association has discontinued the practice of retaining the handling fees paid by those fans that aren’t selected to receive tickets.

Carey said he doubted Indiana’s high court would take up what he called an “arcane” issue.

“No one out there does this,” he said Monday in a telephone interview. “Really the only entity that would be affected by this is the NCAA.”

The association was making money off losing entries, said Carey. “That’s gambling.”

A partner in the Phoenix office of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Carey said he couldn’t offer an estimate of the value of the case or the size if the proposed class.

The federal appeals court panel has asked Indiana’s high court to decide whether the NCAA’s former ticket-allocation method would have been considered a lottery under state law, whether the sales were exempt as a business transaction and if the consumers’ complicity nullified their ability to recover damages.

The suit was first thrown out by U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence in Indianapolis, who concluded that prospective purchasers were aware of the “essential features” of the NCAA system and applied willingly.


  • No big deal
    Most of these same people would be the ones turning around and selling the tickets at multiple times the face value. So they want a can't fail, no cost to extort money from fans on the streets.
    I agree that anyone who buys these tickets knows what they are getting into. I stopped buying my 35 yard row 2 tickets to the colts games when Irsay wanted to extort a $100.00 per seat per game over the cost of the ticket just for the privilege of having a good seat. Where were the courts then?
  • Not surprised
    This is just another example of lawyers wasting people's money and time. Anything to make a buck, right attorneys?

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.