Article Sports Economics on Trial: Alston v. NCAA provides an analysis of lawsuits against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. To a greater extent, the article focuses on NCAA v. Alston and its aftermath. However, the previous case, O’Bannon v. NCAA, is also getting a fair amount of attention, as it started the lawsuits against the NCAA. All cases against the association had a financial basis, as they were concerned with the NCAA’s restrictions on non-monetary academic compensation for students and the association’s monopolization of the field. The NCAA established that the only source of income for student-athletes could be athletic scholarships, but not academic ones.
The main argument in favor of the NCAA’s defense was that such action was necessary to differentiate between professional and student-athletes. In addition, arguments have been made that funding football and basketball players attract more students to educational institutions. Sports such as football and basketball are prevalent, and as a result, educational institution receives additional funding from them. Consequently, the NCAA has pushed to restrict student-athletes from receiving additional scholarships and internships.
Noll also notes that such actions by the NCAA brought anticompetitive harm to the academic field (828). Student-athletes lose motivation to study without the opportunity to receive additional rewards for academic success. In addition, the cases note a disproportionate division of funding between sports depending on their popularity. For example, baseball is a less popular sport and receives less funding. In addition, the NCAA limits the number of students who can receive an athletic scholarship. Consequently, only a few people from the basketball team could receive scholarships in a much smaller amount.
Moreover, many plaintiffs noted that the NCAA often used the names of famous student-athletes for its benefit. However, none of the students received compensation for this. Therefore, another issue in these cases was the possibility of using Name, Image, and Likeliness (NILs) both by the association and by the athletes themselves. The association sought to limit the use of NILs by student-athletes. In this case, the NCAA could continue to benefit from using NILs but also save itself the burden of compensating athletes.
As a result, the court found that “NCAA rules limiting education-related benefits violate antitrust law” (Noll 839). Therefore, the association cannot deprive student-athletes of the opportunity, along with rewards for athletic achievement, to receive rewards for academic achievement. It included removing restrictions on paid internships and allowing students to receive up to $6,000 in monetary rewards for academic achievement (Noll 840). In addition, restrictions were lifted regarding the number of athletes in a team who can receive a scholarship.
However, the cases against the NCAA have left some issues unresolved. The issue of distinguishing between student-athletes and professionals remains open. Therefore, certain limits regarding financial rewards for student sports achievements should be established. The establishment of these restrictions may again raise issues with violation of the antitrust law and a disproportionate division of financial resources between student-athletes. In addition, the issue of using NILs has also remained unresolved for a long time. The association tried to develop rules that would determine the possibilities for using NILs by students. At the same time, establishing these rules could significantly affect the ability of the association itself to use NILs. However, the need to develop these regulations by the NCAA disappeared due to laws passed later.
Work Cited
Noll, Roger G. “Sports Economics on Trial: Alston v. NCAA.” Journal of Sports Economics, vol. 23, no. 6, 2022, pp. 826-845. Web.