The NCAA has made known their disagreement with Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling in Ed O'Bannon's antitrust lawsuit and the organization has now filed an intent to appeal.

According to the Associated Press, the NCAA has not technically filed an appeal, but rather formally informed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of their intent. Wilken ruled on Aug. 8 that the NCAA violated antitrust laws in restricting scholarship student-athletes from earning any compensation beyond the cost of attendance.

"We are appealing the Court's decision because we do not believe the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws," Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, said in a statement. "In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes."

Remy also said the NCAA started making changes to improve scholarship student-athletes quality of life before the ruling and that he would take his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if he had to. One of the major changes the NCAA made was to grant the Power Five conferences with more autonomy to propose and pass their own bylaws.

"The Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the NCAA licensed student-athletes' names, images and likenesses to EA Sports or anyone else," Remy said in a statement earlier this month. "It also rejected the plaintiffs' proposed model where athletes could directly market their names, images and likenesses while in college.

"We look forward to presenting our arguments on appeal, and in the meantime we will continue to champion student-athlete success on the field and in the classroom."

O'Bannon and the other plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit sought and injunction instead of individual damages and therefore asked Wilken to dismiss the jury. She ruled in O'Bannon's favor, but capped what a student-athlete on scholarship could earn at $5,000. Wilken also ruled that her decision should not be stayed during an appeal and the changes are expected to set in in time for next football season.

Robert McTamaney, an antitrust lawyer with the firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, told the AP that cap, a ruling the NCAA praised at first, could be a major argument in their appeal.

"If she's right that these restrictions are an unreasonable restraint of trade then the cap doesn't make any sense," he said. "Then student-athletes should be able to negotiate for whatever they can get."

Related