Antitrust Laws: Should Ncaa Play By Different Rules?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress, arguing that student athletes should remain amateurs and not employees. This request comes after the Supreme Court exposed the NCAA for violating antitrust laws by limiting athlete compensation and movement. The NCAA claims that paying student athletes would destroy the concept of amateur college sports and could eliminate some sports programs. However, opponents argue that the NCAA is acting in its financial interests and those of the schools and conferences. With the NCAA generating billions of dollars in revenue, the debate centres on whether student athletes should be classified as employees and receive fair compensation for their labour.

The NCAA's request for an antitrust exemption

The NCAA is seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress, arguing that college athletes should be considered students, not employees. This request comes in the wake of a 2021 Supreme Court decision, Alston v. NCAA, which found that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by restricting the amount of money schools could give to student athletes. While the NCAA has since lifted its ban on name, image, and likeness contracts, it now wants to regulate these deals more tightly.

The NCAA justifies its request by claiming that paying student-athletes would destroy the concept of amateur college sports and could lead to the elimination of some sports programs. They argue that the current system, which generates billions of dollars in revenue, supports the education of student-athletes and provides opportunities for them to compete and gain valuable experience. However, critics argue that the NCAA's focus on maintaining amateurism is disingenuous, as it has failed to provide a clear definition of amateurism.

The debate over the NCAA's antitrust exemption request highlights the complex nature of college athletics and the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders. While the NCAA argues that an antitrust exemption is necessary to protect the sanctity of collegiate amateur sports, opponents contend that granting such an exemption would undermine the principles of free-market capitalism and result in substantial unfairness to college athletes. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of college sports in the United States.

The NCAA's argument that paying athletes would destroy amateur college sports

Emmert further argues that one of the biggest reasons fans enjoy college sports is the belief that the athletes are students who play for the love of the sport, their school, and their community. He suggests that converting college sports into professional sports would be akin to turning them into unsuccessful minor league sports in the eyes of fans. Emmert also highlights the distinction between coaches, who are paid professionals, and athletes, who are amateurs receiving tuition, room, and board. He draws a comparison to other amateur sports, where many people are professionals due to earning money, but the nature of the athlete's relationship with their university remains unchanged.

Additionally, Emmert claims that paying athletes would create an uneven playing field among schools, potentially leading to the absence of national championships in prominent sports like football and basketball. He asserts that direct payments as an inducement for recruits would be fundamentally different from providing access to specific facilities or stadiums. Member schools would find this situation uncompetitive and would be reluctant to participate in championships driven by such disparities.

The NCAA also argues that paying athletes would limit scholarships and lead to the unfair distribution of scholarships towards top athletes in revenue-generating sports like football and basketball. They claim that many colleges and universities would have to reduce the number of scholarships offered and that less profitable sports would be cut altogether. This would include sports such as gymnastics, swimming, diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling.

In summary, the NCAA's argument centers around the notion that amateurism is integral to college sports and that paying athletes would disrupt the level playing field, detract from the student-athlete experience, reduce fan support, and ultimately prove destructive to the framework of collegiate athletics.

The Supreme Court's 2021 Alston v. NCAA decision

The case originated from a class-action lawsuit, O'Bannon v. NCAA, filed in 2014, which asserted that the NCAA was profiting from the names and likenesses of college athletes without providing any compensation, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The district court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, a decision that was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court. This ruling led to subsequent lawsuits, including Alston v. NCAA, which specifically challenged the NCAA's restrictions on "non-cash education-related benefits."

In March 2019, the district court ruled against the NCAA, stating that their restrictions on non-cash education-related benefits violated antitrust law and required the NCAA to allow certain types of academic benefits beyond full scholarships. The NCAA appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, which upheld the district court's ruling in May 2020. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the NCAA's practices violated antitrust law, despite recognising their interest in preserving amateurism.

The NCAA then appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 31, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision affirming the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, stating that the lower courts' decision was consistent with established antitrust principles. The Supreme Court did not address the aspect of whether student athletes should receive further pay, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, stated that antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of student athletes."

The Alston v. NCAA decision had significant implications for NCAA-affiliated athletic departments, particularly regarding compliance with Title IX as new opportunities for athlete compensation arose. The decision also accelerated the passage of laws to improve collegiate athlete compensation and prompted the NCAA to adapt its policies.

The NCAA's ban on athletes' name, image and likeness contracts

The NCAA's ban on athletes' name, image, and likeness (NIL) contracts has been a contentious issue, with the organization facing legal challenges and criticism for its stance. The ban, which was in place for decades, prevented student-athletes from accepting remuneration for the use of their NIL due to the NCAA's amateurism principle. This principle stated that individuals would lose their amateur status and become ineligible for intercollegiate competition if they used their athletic skills for pay.

However, in July 2021, the NCAA introduced new rules that permitted NIL agreements involving student-athletes. This change came about due to legal challenges, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA in NCAA v. Alston, affirming that the NCAA's restrictions on member institutions paying education-related expenses of student-athletes violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion signaled that the NCAA's remaining compensation rules, which restricted student-athletes from receiving compensation for playing sports, also raised questions under antitrust laws.

Following this ruling, the NCAA implemented an interim NIL policy to address the varying state laws regarding NIL activity. The policy allowed individuals and member institutions in states with NIL laws or executive actions to engage in NIL activity without affecting their eligibility or participation in NCAA athletics. This policy was intended to be in place until federal legislation or new NCAA rules were adopted.

The NCAA's ban on NIL contracts has had a significant impact on student-athletes, who were previously unable to profit from their names, images, and likenesses. With the ban lifted, athletes now have the opportunity to earn compensation by partnering with brands, starting their own businesses, selling memorabilia, and making paid public appearances. However, the rules surrounding NIL activity vary across different states, creating a complex and sometimes conflicting set of guidelines for athletes to navigate.

While the NCAA's ban on NIL contracts has been lifted, the organization continues to face criticism and legal challenges regarding its compensation rules. The NCAA is seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress, arguing that paying student-athletes would destroy the concept of amateur college sports. Opponents argue that the NCAA is prioritizing its financial interests and those of the schools and conferences over the well-being of the athletes. The debate surrounding the NCAA's compensation rules and its request for an antitrust exemption remains ongoing, with legal experts and lawmakers weighing in on the issue.

The NCAA's liability for past antitrust violations

The NCAA has long been accused of violating antitrust laws by imposing restrictions on athletes' compensation and eligibility. In 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NCAA had violated federal antitrust laws, upholding a lower court's decision that the NCAA could not restrict benefits related to education. This ruling has opened the door for athletes to seek compensation for past violations, with several lawsuits already filed.

The NCAA's argument that its restrictions were necessary to maintain amateurism in college sports was rejected by the Supreme Court, which found that the NCAA was more concerned with protecting its financial interests and those of its member schools. The Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston has far-reaching implications, and it has been described as a "reckoning" for college sports.

As a result of this ruling, the NCAA is now facing potential liability for past antitrust violations. A new antitrust lawsuit has been filed by athletes seeking compensation for benefits they were denied before the 2021 ruling. The plaintiffs in this case, including Panthers running back Chuba Hubbard and former Auburn track athlete Keira McCarrell, argue that they were improperly denied benefits and NIL money due to past restrictions on players' compensation. The lawsuit seeks treble damages, a standard component of antitrust recoveries intended to punish those who violate antitrust laws.

The NCAA has long restricted athletes' ability to generate revenue from their names, images, and likenesses, and this has been a significant source of controversy. Following the 2021 ruling, the NCAA was forced to lift its ban on name, image, and likeness deals, allowing athletes to pursue endorsement deals. However, the organization is now seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress, arguing that paying athletes could destroy the concept of amateur college sports.

The NCAA's request for an antitrust exemption has been met with opposition from legal experts and athletes' rights advocates, who argue that the organization is more concerned with protecting its financial interests than those of the athletes. The outcome of the pending lawsuits and the NCAA's request for an exemption will have a significant impact on the future of college sports and athletes' rights.

Frequently asked questions