Introduction
The case was a class-action suit filed on September 8, 2006, by the College Athletes Coalition (CAC) on behalf of its membership comprising Division I football and basketball players advocating for student-athletes. The court certified the suit as a class action on October 19 and the respondent, the NCAA, responded with a motion to dismiss. Although the plaintiffs filed an opposing memorandum, the court agreed with the NCAA’s first motion to dismiss the case but left room for the amendment of the complaint. The plaintiffs then filed their amended complaint which was countered with a second motion to dismiss by the NCAA.
However, the court denied the second motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the class counsel undertook the requisite preliminary investigations, discovery, and depositions in preparation for the trial. However, the NCAA also engaged their adversaries in negotiations through a series of mediation sessions during this phase that formed the basis of a settlement between the parties. Therefore, having considered all factors, the parties agreed to settle the matter without getting to trial.
Facts
The plaintiff brought suit on the ground that the NCAA engaged in anticompetitive behavior. This claim was premised on the fact that the Association’s grant of full scholarships or Grant-in-Aid (GIA) was conditional on an imposed cap restricting the amount of scholarship a recipient could get. Consequently, the cost of attendance set by educational institutions was usually higher than this limit with the result that student-athletes struggled to survive and were riddled with debt. The court was implored to hold the NCAA accountable for the deficit between the institutional costs of attendance and the GIA and to direct it to desist from implementing its erratic GIA policy (Kniss, 2017). However, the court did not have the opportunity to deliberate on the case as a settlement was reached before trial.
Issue
The primary issue for the court’s determination was whether the NCAA contravened the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the amount of aid that a student-athlete could receive a full scholarship. The restrictions meant that student-athletes had to bear the greater burden of the costs of attendance than they would have had to if the limitations were not effective. Hence, the question was whether the GIA cap was uncompetitive behavior.
Case Outcome
Accordingly, the court was being invited to decide on whether the NCAA had engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The decision would have been important because an adverse finding against the NCAA would have opened the litigation floodgates across the US. However, as noted, the matter never got to trial because the parties came to a court-mediated settlement that averted the trouble and expense of a long trial. Each plaintiff, under the terms of the settlement, got $5000 in addition to the $10 million concession to all student-athletes in the class represented in the suit (Anderson, n.d).
Further, the NCAA paid for attorney’s fees totaling $8.6 million, established a new fund worth $218 million, and established a 5-year scholarships rule (Anderson, n.d). Thus, the case resulted in a policy shift as well as monetary gain for the plaintiffs and their beneficiaries.
Conclusion
This case cannot be considered seminal because its failure to proceed to trial means that the court never got the chance to expound on antitrust law, thus, no legal precedent was established. Therefore, the phrase ‘landmark’ may not necessarily be associated with it. Nonetheless, the case is undoubtedly remarkable because it was able to instigate change even without getting to trial or resulting in the enunciation of a groundbreaking rule of law. The NCAA, by pushing for settlement and changing its troublesome policies, signified the acknowledgment of a pressing problem and a commitment to addressing it.
References
Anderson, P. Recent employment law issues in sports and entertainment. Web.
Kniss, R. (2017). Pay for play: the role of the courts in NCAA regulation of amateurism in intercollegiate athletics (PhD). Michigan State University.
White v. NCAA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101374, 2006 WL 8066803 (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Filed).