WILLIAM EVAN BREWSTER: NCAA at the crossroads: How college sports are on the precipice of change. This dissertation examines the current model of American college athletics and how football and basketball in particular have become extremely commercialized. This piece begins with an analysis of the current state of amateur college athletics and the changes that have occurred recently.
The NCAA marks one of the latest challenges to the NCAA's power as it seeks to change an unfair system that requires student-athletes to remain amateurs while universities exploit athletic contests. In conclusion, cases like O'Bannon and the possibility of college athletes unionizing will be evaluated.
Introduction
This led to the creation of the NCAA in 1910 to establish uniform rules for intercollegiate athletics and protect amateur athletes. It wasn't until the 1980s that university leaders became involved with the NCAA and its rulemaking process. This significantly changed the amount of money tied to college sports as the NCAA lost the ability to police the sport.
On the other hand, the NCAA signed huge television contracts worth billions of dollars, leading to the enormous commercialization found in college sports today.14. However, anything in excess will result in a loss of eligibility for student-athletes: "The NCAA's Rule on Expenses states that a. As a result, the NCAA has instituted a policy that student-athletes shall not receive outside compensation for their participation in college athletics.
College Athletics Today
NCAA's claim to amateurism.20 Byers also wrote that the term "student-athlete" was created by the NCAA in the 1950s to be vague and support the idea of amateurism. As previously mentioned, after the Supreme Court decision in the Board of Regents case, Byers and the NCAA lost their control over the business decisions of colleges and universities. Commissioners often hold power over the universities during their conference, but pale in comparison to the power of the NCAA.
Public perception quickly turned in Manziel's favor against the NCAA as many believed this rule was. University of Mississippi athletic director Ross Bjork believes governance and trust in the NCAA are the biggest problems facing college athletics. Much of this debate centers on the power of the NCAA and questions the current model of college athletics.
The Legal Landscape Surrounding College Sports
These legal principles are important to understand before looking at the various legal battles involving the NCAA. Courts will look at the three and consider whether a case involves the NCAA regulatory action or the NCAA and antitrust law. When it comes to regulatory actions taken by the NCAA, high courts have generally deferred to the NCAA.
Justice Stevens points out in the majority opinion that UNLV wanted to keep Tarkanian, thus making them adversaries of the NCAA instead of allies. A person who believed the NCAA had failed to provide due process was still without recourse. The court said Bloom could not both play football and participate in commercials, as NCAA rules had been put in place to protect amateurism.
While this court allowed Bloom, the student-athlete, to have third-party status, they once again deferred to the NCAA's legislative action. Over time, however, the NCAA has come under severe scrutiny for its regulation of business under antitrust laws. Prior to this case, the courts deferred to the NCAA when it was challenged for violating the Sherman Act.
As mentioned earlier, things changed when the NCAA's television plan for college football was challenged in 1984. In this case, the Supreme Court differently evaluated the NCAA as a regulator of commerce, instead of a regulator. The Supreme Court ruled that “the NCAA's restrictions on televising college football games as a commercial activity are within the purview of the Sherman Act.
Judge Ebel of the Tenth Circuit Court said that “the NCAA's rationale for cost containment is illegitimate because…[r]educes the cost to the member.
O’Bannon v. NCAA
As in the Sam Keller case, the NCAA claimed he did nothing wrong and filed a motion to dismiss the case. For the first time in many years, the NCAA appeared to be facing a substantial legal challenge. For decades, courts, using the rule of reason, would deny cases similar to O'Bannon v. the NCAA.
The NCAA was looking for any kind of claim that would give them the upper hand. The NCAA appeared to be fighting an uphill battle as public consciousness behind O'Bannon rose: "Likewise, what happens if the defense ultimately prevails. Win or lose, O'Bannon and his co-plaintiffs have the NCAA gave its critics a powerful invigorating voice.
In March 2013, the NCAA filed another injunction in San Francisco federal court, dismissing the class action nature of the lawsuit. We're happy to move from the theory to the factual part of the case so we can show the court and the public what we've been saying all along: The NCAA is not. In June 2013, the NCAA's motion to dismiss the class action nature of the case was denied by Judge Wilken of San Francisco federal court.
The NCAA could have settled with O'Bannon and the other plaintiffs before Judge Wilken's decision in June. The implications of this decision will be further evaluated in the upcoming sections, but without a doubt, the class action certification of this case dealt a major blow to the NCAA and their hopes of success with this case. As a result, claims Noll, "there is no objective basis for the specific definition of amateur used by the NCAA."92.
Ultimately, the plaintiffs in O'Bannon were able to successfully argue for class action certification, and the NCAA faced a revolutionary facelift.
Where O’Bannon Currently Stands
Finally, the plaintiffs seek to challenge the NCAA on the issue of the viability of sports other than football and basketball. But they have made it clear that they are targeting as much as 50% of NCAA and conference television rights revenue for some form of increased compensation, including the ability to set aside money for athletes after they stop playing.102 . District Judge Claudia Wilken will decide an underlying antitrust case involving the use of college athletes' names and likenesses in her favor without a trial.”103 Further, the NCAA refuted the plaintiff's claim that there is not enough evidence to support the current model of college sports.
The NCAA has outlined five justifications for the restrictions placed on student-athletes and has attempted to use extensive. Furthermore, the NCAA used a statement from Big XII Commissioner Bob Bowlsby to imply that fans, donors and alumni do not want student-athletes to be paid.104 This could theoretically be wrong as donors and alumni would be more willing to pay for pay their program. to have the resources to be successful. Second, the NCAA's efforts to justify competitive balance will only be possible by placing restrictions on the student-athletes.
Third, the NCAA claims that the traditional role of the student-athlete would be upset if compensation were allowed. The NCAA uses this statement to show how colleges and universities provide services to student-athletes that are not granted to other students on campus. The NCAA argues student-athletes are an elite group of students on campus, at least the athletes for the major sports, because they receive the benefits, as outlined by Robinson, that are not offered to the other students.
Fourth, the NCAA tries to argue that sports other than basketball and football will be adversely affected if student-athletes receive payment. The NCAA uses Michigan State's athletic director in this section because he believes the university would have to cut sports if they were required to pay student-athletes. This may be because the NCAA uses amateurism to protect the current model of college sports.
In addition, they alleged that the NCAA "may not be concerned about the proper education of its student-athletes."108 In addition, the plaintiffs requested documents relating to discussions of rule changes at the NCAA convention that month.
The Future of College Sports
First, the NCAA will attempt to argue that student-athletes should not be paid for their games appearing on live television, despite the plaintiff's request. 34;CBS' Monopoly on Final Four is Over; cable's TBS gets games." The Dallas Morning News. The NCAA will respond by relying on their argument of amateurism, but will it work.
34; Maybe you could implement more competitive balance by addressing coach salaries." Another of the NCAA's justifications is to protect amateurism. Wilken largely skirted the topic with a dismissive line: "I don't think amateurism is going to be a word. useful here."117. This would require the NCAA to change its rules, but would still keep their organization intact.
As mentioned, another possible outcome would be if the NCAA settles out of court with the plaintiffs before the case goes to trial in June 2014. Second, the NCAA would have to trim its cumbersome rulebook, allowing the schools to have more power. This would allow the NCAA to take a step back, redesign their role in college athletics and hopefully change the public perception of the organization.
Third, and finally, the NCAA would have to concede the end of amateurism as a rationale for college athletics. The NCAA should ensure that student-athletes benefit from the education they receive, while making sure everything is in place for them to succeed beyond school. The NCAA could retain many of the rules to protect college athletes from exploitation while allowing the athletes to have their voices heard during rulemaking.129.
With the decision to allow Northwestern football players to unionize, the NCAA would do well to drop the amateurism argument. Yes, the NCAA was designed to regulate college athletics, which was not the business it is today. NCAA: Do Former NCAA Athletes Have a Case Against the NCAA for Using Their Likeness?.” Saint Louis University Law School Fall Review (2010).
