JORDAN MACEJKA —The NCAA promotes “amateurism” as its foundation for student-athletes. “Amateurism” is a “bedrock principle” that applies to student-athletes. Under this foundation, student-athletes are encouraged to put academics before sports. Essentially, they must be amateurs in the sense that they do not have contracts with professional teams, they do not receive compensation for playing college athletics, they do not have relations with agents, and they must not tryout or practice with any professional team while being a student-athlete. However, 2014 has brought multiple blows to this foundation. Several lawsuits have the potential to completely destroy the NCAA’s amateur foundation. The lawsuits have many believing that the NCAA system is deteriorating before our eyes.
On January 28, 2014, the Northwestern University football players filed a petition to unionize with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). In a hearing before the NLRB, the University vigorously argued that football players could not be considered employees of the school. The University argued that the players are “student athletes”: that it has an academic relationship with the student athletes rather than an economic relationship. But if the students were to be considered employees, they would only be temporary employees, thus they would not be able to take part in collective bargaining. The Northwestern University football players, on the other hand, argued that they are employees of the University because they are under the University’s control and they receive compensation in the form of scholarships, thus creating a “master-servant” relationship.
Then, on March 26, 2014, a NLRB hearing officer rendered a decision, which favored the Northwestern football players. Student athletes are employees of their universities. Northwestern University appealed the decision. The case will be in front of the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.
If the decision is upheld, what does this mean for the Northwestern football team? If they are allowed to form a union, the players will have the opportunity to collectively bargain with their university for player benefits. Meaning, the term “student athlete” will no longer exist. Although the decision has only been limited to the football players at Northwestern University, it is only a matter of time until other private universitieswill follow Northwestern’s footsteps. While the NCAA was not a party in this case, the decision goes directly against their “amateurism” model.
Under its current rules, the NCAA does not allow college athletes to receive any revenue by using their name, image, or likeness (NIL) in television broadcasts or video games. However, on August 8, 2014, Judge Claudia Wilken, of the Northern District of California, decided against this NCAA rule in O’Bannon v. NCAA. The court found that the NIL rule violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is essentially involved in price fixing, by fixing a student athlete’s NIL at $0. Essentially, the NCAA conspires with universities by preventing athletes from receiving NIL compensation.
This “NIL” ruling applies to football and basketball players. It will allow those student-athletes to receive up to $5,000 per year. This compensation is put into a trust, which the athlete can access when he or she leaves the university, graduates, or is no longer eligible to participate in college athletics. Thus, a four-year player can have up to $20,000 in a trust fund after he or she graduates.
The O’Bannon case has also been appealed. If the decision is upheld, the NCAA’s amateur model will be tough to argue because student athletes will be receiving compensation for their athletic participation.
Although these two cases have served serious blows to the NCAA and its “amateurism” model, the worst is yet to come. On March 17, 2014, well-known antitrust attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA and the big five conferences (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12) in a New Jersey Federal Court. What makes this case, known as “The Kessler Case”, different from the O’Bannon case is that it is not as narrow as receiving compensation for a player’s NIL. This case seeks to get rid of financial aid limitations for athletes; thus allowing universities to pay student athletes more than the cost of tuition. By preventing the NCAA from limiting financial aid and scholarships that players can receive, universities will be able to give student-athletes more, financially, than the cost of attending school, thus allowing the players to get paid. This case has only been filed, but since courts have been ruling in favor of student-athletes in recent decisions, this case could to completely destroy “amateurism” in the NCAA.
The multiple decisions that ruled against the NCAA and the filed lawsuit brought by Jeffrey Kessler are without a doubt things the NCAA would like to forget. However, that is not possible, as this year could signify the evolutionary change of the NCAA and its foundation that it has lived on for its entire existence. College athletics, as we know it, may never be the same.
