101 Iowa L. Rev. 2015 (2016)

Download PDF

Abstract

The O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association litigation has put the financial landscape and future of intercollegiate sports at a monumental crossroads. The U.S. district court granted Division I men’s basketball and football players remedies due to antitrust violation by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that NCAA must pass antitrust scrutiny and accepted one of the district court’s remedies. Other reforms, including the NCAA’s decision to grant the Power Five Conferences more autonomy, have made clear that the “Principle of Amateurism” needs to be revisited for college athletes. The vast majority of athletes, those in “non-revenue” sports, do not have a clear place in this reform. Those in a position of reform should account for these interests to reach the best solution for the future of intercollegiate athletics. This Note proposes three possible routes that fit the changing times for student-athletes and their compensation for their athletic services. First, without other intervention, changes to college athletics could lead to a free market employer–employee relationship between student-athletes and the institutions. Second, government intervention could help stabilize what lies ahead in college athletics. Lastly, and what this Note argues to be the most appropriate, member institutions should embrace cost-of-attendance scholarships, and the NCAA should reform its bylaws to allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their name, image and likeness. The NCAA bylaw reform should rethink the “Principle of Amateurism” and allow athlete-agent interaction for the benefit of “indirect financial activity.”