College athletes battle the NCAA in the Supreme Court
By Ava Bourdeau, Staff Writer
For the first time since 1984, college sports have found themselves at the center of multiple massive lawsuits, one of which is going to the Supreme Court. The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) has been under scrutiny in the past few years over the issue of whether or not college athletes should be allowed to make money off of selling their name, image and likeness. Recent controversy has also surfaced concerning compensation money athletes can earn from colleges themselves. This past June, attorneys filed an antitrust lawsuit on behalf of two college athletes, which threatened to put millions of dollars at stake if the NCAA is forced to pay reparations to the plaintiffs.
College sports were fundamentally changed when mass broadcasting of games turned them into a billion dollar industry. Thus, it was only a matter of time before confusion arose between what it means to be a college athlete versus a professional player. In 2014, the case O’Bannon v. NCAA surfaced in the public eye. The issue revolved around the NCAA denying college athletes the opportunity to receive monetary compensation from outside deals, endorsements and sponsorships. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case when it was brought before them in 2016, leading many states to individually pass laws in favor of the athletes, including Florida and California. These laws were supposed to begin going into effect this year and will continue into 2023. Due to events caused by COVID-19, the Justice Department has told the NCAA to hold off on changing their policies, which they had previously agreed to do by this past January. NCAA representatives have not given an exact date, meaning athletes are still limited as far as profiting off of their name, image and likeness. Luckily for them, experts predict that changes will be made by the end of the year. This will open up game-changing opportunities for athletes, with ESPN estimating that they could earn anywhere from $1,000 to $1 million off of rights to their name and likeness. As far as outside sponsorships go, even athletes who have yet to play at the collegiate level see them as valuable, including Samo boys’ soccer player Theo Wright (’22).
“A lot of [college athletes] aren’t able to have a job. If they’re getting Nike cleats sent to them and wearing them on the field, I don’t see how that’s a detriment to anybody,” Wright said.
In May of 2020, the ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against allowing the NCAA to set a limit for college athletes’ education-related compensation. The court ruled that any and all benefits must be tied to education, leaving both sides claiming a murky victory. This led both the NCAA and the involved athletes to petition for the Supreme Court to review the case. It was not until December of 2020 that the nation’s highest court agreed to pick up the case, with the final ruling expected to be announced in June of 2021.
For college athletes, winning this case could lead to fundamental changes in not only their college experience, but also their careers. With the possibility of schools being able to pay athletes an unlimited amount of money in order to gain their commitment, college players have the possibility of getting their careers off the ground far sooner. Athletes involved in the case are additionally petitioning to receive money from the school unrelated to education. This has led to the fear that this will create unfair discrepancies between schools, which has caused trepediton within some athletes, including those hoping to try their hand at the world of collegiate athletics in the near future.
Samo swimmer, Brandon Wu (’22), understands how allowing schools to pay an unlimited amount for college athletes would create an unfair advantage for big schools with more money.
“I think these changes would cause quite a mess, because then all the rich colleges will get to pull whatever players they want. The colleges trying to develop their sport wouldn’t even get a chance,” Wu said.
According to attorneys representing the plaintiffs, the exploitation of college athletes by the NCAA is cause for the class-action lawsuit (a type of lawsuit where at least one party represents a large group or corporation) to be brought before the Supreme Court. Athletes playing for Power 5 schools are additionally seeking damages stemming from past restrictions on compensation for the use of athletes’ name, image and likeness. On the other hand, NCAA representatives fear that a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor will create a “pay-for-play” system, allowing athletes to earn an unrestricted quantity of payment for participation in activities outside of NCAA events, on top of the scholarship money they receive from their school. While some students desire no limits on compensation, this issue is not black-and-white. More compensation is certainly widely desired, however many people believe that a maximum should still be set.
“Unlimited compensation is very iffy territory… it could become a case of [what school] spends more on college athletics, and I don’t think that’s really where money should be going,” Wright said.
The NCAA hopes that Congress will create a national law setting down uniform compensation guidelines in order to prevent future litigation conundrums. They are additionally in the process of altering their rules in order to allow athletes to make money off of their respective name, image and likeness. Senators such as Marco Rubio and Roger Wicker have also proposed bills advocating for athletes’ rights, with more expected to be discussed in the coming months. The additional involvement of the Supreme Court speaks to the game-changing effects this case is likely to have. The ruling threatens to dramatically alter the relationship between college athletes and the conferences in which they participate. Coupled with the possibility of schools being able to pay whatever they want for athletes’ attendance, competition between both students and schools could either massively increase or grind to a mammoth halt.