Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Double-Edged Sword: Amateurism and the NCAA

10/23/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen

Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.

The history of college athletics has been a long and complicated one.  During the course of this history, the NCAA has developed a set of rules in order to foster a sense of amateurism at the collegiate level, while still allowing students to both perform athletically and obtain a solid college education. Out of all of these rules, the most highly contested is whether student athletes should be paid above the cost of attending the school. The NCAA has said no, and the courts have taken a similar opinion on this subject.

In the court case O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that college athletes should not be paid above the full cost of attendance to a university. But what was particularly interesting about this case was that it was brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1898, as the plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA was engaging in anticompetitive activities through not allowing deferred compensation. In particular, they were restraining “trade” in the sense that college athletes could not sell their names, images, or likenesses (NILs) to video game producers or other licensors.
The first issue in the case was whether the NCAA was even subject to an antitrust analysis under the Sherman Antitrust Act. For this, the NCAA set out three reasons why the plaintiffs’ claim failed on merits: Firstly, the Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma that amateurism rules are “valid as a matter of law”; in addition, the compensation rules in respect to the issues here are not covered by the Sherman Act at all because they don’t regulate commercial activity; and finally, the plaintiffs have no standing because they haven’t suffered an “antitrust injury.” With each of these three arguments, the Ninth Circuit quickly dismissed them. [1]

For the Regents case, the “amateurism” argument came from a discussion about why a particular television rule should be analyzed under the Rule of Reason. The NCAA interpreted this, however, to say that the Court interpreted their amateurism rules to be consistent with the Sherman Act. Disposing of this argument, the Court next turned to the commercial activity and injury arguments. It seems almost absurd to argue that the NCAA does not engage in any form of “commerce,” considering the years of Supreme Court decisions that have broadened its definition. Using a common definition of “…including almost every activity from which the actor anticipates economic gain,” it makes sense to show that athletes competing within the NCAA could forego economic gain from the amateurism rules. [2] This feeds into the final point, in which most media corporations would be happy to buy the NILs of players. Because of this missed opportunity for deferred compensation on behalf of the players, that is all that is needed to establish “antitrust injury” subject to the Sherman Act.

After the Court rejected these arguments, it launched into the primary analysis of the NCAA’s actions subject to Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In particular, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the NCAA engaged in anticompetitive activities by fixing the “price” that recruits pay to attend college—thus creating a monopsony where the buyer (the university) fixes the amount that can be paid for playing for the school.  Taking this into consideration, however, the NCAA does take some genuine pro-competitive actions with the college education market. The goal of promoting amateurism is legitimate in that sometimes restraint can increase consumer demand for sports, but the NCAA’s argument that restraining commerce would “widen” athletes’ range of economic choices seems almost counter-intuitive when one realizes, once again, that some athletes could actually get additional compensation in college for licensing their NILs. Noting this, the justifications of these anticompetitive measures do not hold up to the Rule of Reason. [3] What was left now was to state some of the less restrictive alternatives to the current NCAA compensation rule. On this point, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court.  Specifically, they said that universities were permitted to provide up to the full cost of attendance to athletes in compensation, but nothing more. The additional proposal of paying each player up to $5,000 per year seemed rather erroneous.

This once again comes back to the NCAA’s rule of promoting amateurism. Although not sufficient by itself to shield the NCAA from antitrust analysis, trying to keep collegiate athletes at an amateur level does carry some validity. When colleges pay student athletes, the students will essentially lose their amateur status. But beyond this, the arbitrary “$5,000” compensation came from a district court testimony where it was asked whether making large payments or small payments to athletes would make the collegiate sports market better off. The answer was small payments, but this was the wrong question to ask. In fact, the question should have been, “Will any form of payments to college athletes adversely affect the sports market?” Once schools cross the line of offering athletes cash sums above education-related compensation, then the point of amateurism within collegiate sports becomes moot and a minor league system of colleges has been created.

This recent opinion is the first to rule on the nature of whether players could legally force the NCAA to pay them. Although it is unclear as to whether the Supreme Court will take up the case, it is nonetheless important in the expanding definition of commerce. Moreover, with the growing influence and money attached to the world of college sports, opening up the possibility for athletes to be paid also complicates an otherwise standardized process that allows students to play in college while getting an education. This is because the individuals that are bringing these suits are often rare, talented Division I players who do not speak for the rest of these amateur athletes that actually benefit from the amateurism of the NCAA. In the end, this amateur status is a double-edged sword: it ensures the longevity of the NCAA, but also makes it vulnerable to competition-based lawsuits.


[1] Solomon, Jon. “NCAA Supreme Court Ruling Felt at O’Bannon Trial 30 Years Later.” CBSSports.com. January 22, 2013. Accessed October 8, 2015.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24598262/ncaa-supreme-court-ruling-felt-at-obannon-trial-30-years-later
[2] Areeda, Phillip, and Herbert Hovenkamp. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Applications. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 1995. 260.
[3] Fundakowski, Daniel C. “The Rule of Reason: From Balancing to Burden Shifting.” American Bar Association. January 22, 2013. Accessed October 8, 2015.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at303000_ebulletin_20130122.authcheckdam.pdf

Photo Credit: Flickr User 
Phil Roeder

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​