(AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt, File)
Clemson defensive back Martin Jenkins (14) stops The Citadel's Dalton Trevino during the second half of an NCAA college football game in Clemson, S.C. in November 2013. Jenkins has filed lawsuits against the NCAA challenging rules against paying players.

Should college athletes get a paycheck?

A federal judge will decide on the status of a class-action lawsuit that challenges the NCAA policy that prevents schools paying athletes like they're professionals.

Fresh off a ruling that Northwestern University football players can't form a union, the NCAA is about to face a more direct challenge to its longstanding policy of not letting schools pay athletes like they're professionals.

A federal judge who issued a landmark decision against the NCAA last year is considering whether to grant class-action status to lawsuits by current and former college athletes seeking to abolish the NCAA's prohibition against competitively paying players. Taken together, the cases carry billion-dollar implications and hinge, essentially, on whether the concepts of amateur athleticism and economic competition can co-exist.

The NCAA says its model sets a level playing field among schools and their teams. But its business model requires collusion, and critics have long decried it for hampering the competition normally considered healthy in a free market.

"These are just educational institutions who have decided to go into a business," said Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney representing former Clemson football player Martin Jenkins and two others. He has also represented labor unions for professional athletes. "That's perfectly lawful, but you don't get to conspire not to pay your workers anything in that business."

The Jenkins case, by far the biggest threat to the status quo, aims to strike down any compensation limits for players and let a competitive market emerge.

"I think that everyone sees this is completely in opposition to any model of college sports as we've ever known," NCAA President Mark Emmert said late last year.

Another lawsuit brought by former West Virginia University running back Shawne Alston seeks to allow conferences to set their own rules for paying players, and then compete against rival conferences to recruit athletes.

The lawsuits may already be having an effect. After years of debate and mounting legal pressure, the NCAA's dominant conferences agreed to start paying their players the difference between what they receive in scholarships and what it actually costs to attend a school, one of the goals in both cases.

Those payments begin this month.

Big athletic conferences are already squeamish about even that change. The powerful Southeastern Conference proposed a rule that would force schools to inform the NCAA if their athletes get a stipend that's bigger than the costs of attendance the schools report to the U.S. Department of Education.

While SEC officials said the rule would help maintain transparency, economists critical of the NCAA saw it as a rule designed to deter market competition.

The proposal was rejected.

Outside of college athletics, economic competition is considered good for society. Prices drop when companies compete to sell laptops, coffee and cars. When firms compete to hire the best workers, wages rise.

With some exceptions for the greater good, U.S. law generally bans companies from striking deals that curtail competition — in a word, cartels. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether major airlines colluded to limit available seats, making tickets more expensive. Silicon Valley workers tentatively accepted a $415 million settlement this year after accusing Apple Inc., Google Inc. and other tech firms of agreeing not to hire each other's employees.

But for years, courts and other authorities have been nibbling around the edges of NCAA rules that limit competition. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the NCAA from limiting the number of televised football games back in the 1980s, although Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the same ruling that the NCAA could make a case as a legal cartel, words the organization and an appellate court have clung to since.

The NCAA settled lawsuits accusing it of arbitrarily limiting pay for assistant coaches and capping student scholarships.

It recently lost a ruling that found students were entitled to compensation when their likenesses are used commercially, a case led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon. The NCAA has appealed that ruling.

On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board blocked football players at Northwestern University from forming their own labor union, overturning a regional labor administrator's determination that the players were essentially school employees.

The NCAA defends its rules as upholding a tradition of amateurism. Big-money athletic teams also help support less-popular college sports and can boost educational budgets, the association has said. While star athletes would almost certainly get more money in a competitive market, economists hired by the NCAA say less-talented athletes could receive less, and schools might discontinue some unprofitable teams.

Lawyers and economists for the players dispute that. The NCAA itself reported $872 million in revenue in the 2011-2012 school year. TV rights for the NCAA men's basketball tournament and football bowls are worth nearly $18 billion, most of which gets distributed to schools and conferences.

"They are going to field a full roster at Division I because they are going to want to compete," said Steve Berman, an attorney for Alston. "It's lucrative enough to do so."

Expect important decisions as soon as October, when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California, will hear arguments on whether related lawsuits should proceed as class-action cases. Wilken ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon case over the use of player images.

The early legal decisions are important because many such suits never reach a jury. The judge could all but kill the case by blocking lawyers for the athletes from representing a wide group of players.

On the other hand, if Wilken grants the cases class-action status, the NCAA would face increasing pressure to settle rather than risk a verdict that could blow up its business model.


Here's a brief history of some of the major cases that have led to this point:

—1984: The U.S. Supreme Court rules the NCAA cannot restrict the number of televised games it would allow. The University of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma had challenged those rules as an illegal restraint on trade. Justice John Paul Stevens said that the NCAA might enjoy some latitude on other rules governing players, but only the TV restrictions were at issue in the case.

"It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore procompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics," Stevens wrote.

—1999: The NCAA pays a $54.5 million settlement after it was accused of capping the pay of assistant coaches at $16,000 per year. Federal judges decided that cap violated antitrust laws.

—2008: The NCAA reaches a settlement in a lawsuit brought by former Stanford football player Jason White and others. They accused the NCAA of keeping the scholarships beneath the actual cost of attendance. Under the settlement, the NCAA created a $10 million fund to reimburse former athletes for educational costs they previously incurred. The NCAA made an additional $218 million available to pay for benefits given to college athletes enrolled between the 2007-2013 academic years.

—2014: In a case led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken blocks the NCAA from making rules that deny players the right to compensation when their images are used commercially, for example, in video games and telecasts. Her ruling could allow some players to receive as much as $20,000 when they leave school. The NCAA has appealed.

—2015: In a concession to calls for athletes in major sports to be paid, the NCAA allows the five largest conferences to pay athletes stipends that fund attendance costs not otherwise covered by scholarships limited to tuition, room and board.

Separately, the National Labor Relations Board denies a bid by Northwestern University football players to form their own union.

Follow Ray Henry on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rhenryAP

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Should college athletes get a paycheck?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today