PAY FOR PLAY: THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN NCAA REGULATION OF
AMATEURISM IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
By
Robert S. Kniss

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
PAY FOR PLAY: THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN NCAA REGULATION OF
AMATEURISM IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
By
Robert S. Kniss
The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the manner in which it governs
intercollegiate athletics has come under intense scrutiny in its recent history. The area within the
NCAA’s policy’s and legislation that has come under fire the most is its regulation on studentathlete amateurism. Within the past few decades the NCAA has faced an ever growing demand
for it to move away from the amateurism model of college athletics, and embrace a model of pay
for play. During this time the NCAA has faced numerous lawsuits that challenge the manner in
which it operates. For its part, the NCAA has responded to the lawsuits, win or lose, with
legislative changes that have satisfied their critics to a degree, keeping them content until the
next legal confrontation arises. The NCAA has shown reluctance in scrapping its amateurism
model and instead has attempted to fend off the argument of pay for play by adopting new
policies as tools of mitigation for the debate.
This study is an historical analysis of the court battles the NCAA has faced, and the
strategic manner in which the NCAA has adopted new policies to quell the argument of pay for
play in college athletics. This analysis takes a look at the cases and examines the mechanisms the
NCAA uses to respond to and appease their critics, the institutions it represents, and the studentathletes. A major focus of this study is to examine how the NCAA has been able to make slight
adaptions to their policies, along with introducing new programs that border on the concept of
amateurism. This study shows that the policy changes made by the NCAA have been reactions to
the legal conflicts they have faced and have pushed the limits of pay for play allowing the

NCAA to still proclaim that student-athlete amateurism is a sacrosanct concept within
intercollegiate athletics.

Copyright by
ROBERT S. KNISS
2017

I dedicate this dissertation to my wife Summer and my children Imogen, Lysander, and Portia.
The unwavering love, support, and encouragement from Summer has been crucial in me
achieving my PhD. And for my children to see the importance of education and that they can
accomplish anything.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Conducting a project as large as a dissertation is not something one can accomplish
without the assistance of key people. There are many people who have given me guidance and
encouragement along this journey. I would first like to thank Dr. Steven Weiland, my
dissertation chair and program advisor. Steve’s guidance and advice was crucial in assisting me
in determining how I wanted to narrow my research, and which direction certain aspects of my
writing should go. As my program advisor, he was helpful in guiding me through the program
and helping me to understand the balance I needed to maintain between my studies and my
professional goals. I would also like to thank Sue Carter J.D. whose guidance on my dissertation
committee helped me to focus my dissertation on the legal battles the NCAA has faced.
Additionally I would like to thank Dr. Brendan Cantwell and Dr. Matt Wawrzynski for
challenging me in my writing with tough questions that ultimately enhanced my research overall.
Their insights helped me to develop a stronger argument. I would also like to acknowledge Joy
Milano and her efforts in editing my work and giving me guidance on where my writing needed
improvement.
Studying and ultimately completing a PhD is more than just writing a dissertation. It is
an educational journey that has its challenges. It is even more of a demanding process when you
are attempting to complete this journey while being a full time professional and helping raise a
family. During this journey I had many people that gave support in ways that I will forever be
grateful. Dr. Mike Zeig and Dr. Stefan Fletcher came into the program with me and I cannot give
them enough credit for helping me navigate my way through the program and encouraging me to
continue when I began to waver. I would also like to acknowledge Rick Shipman, my director

vi

and mentor, for allowing me to pursue this degree and for his helpful insights and encouragement
along the way. And finally I want to acknowledge my wife Summer Kniss. I do not believe I
would have been able to accomplish this PhD without her love and support and allowing me to
pursue this ultimate educational accomplishment.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

X

LIST OF FIGURES

XI

Chapter One: Background, Research Questions, and Significance
Background to Study
Research Questions
Significance of this Study
Key Events in the History of the NCAA

1
1
5
6
7

Chapter Two: Brief Literature Review and Research Method
Literature Review
The NCAA.
Collegiate Amateurism.
Pay for Play in Collegiate Athletics.
Research Method
Sample.
Documents and Sequence of Steps.

12
12
12
14
18
23
23
26

Chapter Three: The Sherman Antitrust Act and Televising Collegiate Sporting Events
Sherman Antitrust Act History
The Sherman Antitrust Act and College Athletics
College Football Association.
Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA.
District Court.
Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court.
Pay for Play

28
28
31
31
35
36
43
47
52

Chapter Four: History of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and College Athlete
Scholarship Issues
White v. NCAA
Progress of the Lawsuit
The Settlement
NCAA March Madness Basketball History and Contracts
Pay for Play Ramifications

54
54
55
57
63
72

Chapter Five: Names, Images, Likenesses, and Paying College Athletes
Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA
Background on Ed O’Bannon.
Background on O’Bannon vs. NCAA.
Correlation of NCAA Violations to the O’Bannon Lawsuit.
EA Sports and Use of Student-Athletes’ Likenesses.

76
76
76
77
79
80

viii

EA Sports.
The Lawsuit’s Progress to Trial.
Bench Trial.
Testimony.
Trial Findings and Pay for Play.
NCAA Appeal.
Supreme Court Petition.
Pay for Play Scandals
Southern Methodist University.
University of Michigan.

80
81
83
84
90
91
94
96
96
100

Chapter Six: Secondary Cases
Kent Waldrep Worker’s Compensation Suit
Northwestern Unionization
Jenkins v. NCAA
Summary of Cases

106
106
109
111
113

Chapter Seven: NCAA Reactions and Policy Changes
Amendments to Scholarships and Policies
Student-Athlete Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program.
Student Assistance Fund.
Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund
Miscellaneous Expense Account (MEA).
Cost of Attendance Increase.

115
116
116
117
119
121
122

Chapter Eight: Findings
Looking Again at Amateurism
Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA.
White v. NCAA.
Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA.
A New View of Benefits
Managing Amateurism in Public

125
125
125
127
128
130
132

Chapter Nine: Personal Reflections
Cultural Significance
Reflections

136
136
140

APPENDIX

152

REFERENCES

158

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Cases ........................................................................................................ 114

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Growth of Student Assistance Fund ............................................................................ 119

xi

Chapter One: Background, Research Questions, and Significance
Background to Study
Pay for play is a phrase used by many media outlets to describe a system of college
athletics where the student-athletes at Division I colleges and universities can be paid for their
participation in their college sport. The underlying theme and major argument for a pay for play
structure is that big time college athletics generates millions of dollars for their respective
institutions; however, the athletes who are playing the sport see little to no compensation for
their participation. College and university athletic administrators contend that the full scholarship
offered to these athletes is enough compensation for their participation and that some athletes
over-value the contribution they make to the revenue generated by their particular sport. The
issue of pay for play has been a great concern to the current and ex-athletes involved, the media
outlets who feel the athletes have been and are being exploited, and the college and university
administrators who feel that the student-athletes should be treated as amateurs and not be paid
for their play.
This study is an historical analysis of the pay for play phenomenon and the legal battles
that have emerged from the debate over the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA)
amateurism rule. This study will include: (a) analysis of the origins of pay for play and how it
has evolved, (b) the legal battles that have taken place with the NCAA, including several key
rulings by the NCAA on member institutions, and (c) how the legal battles have affected the rule
of amateurism and the manner in which the NCAA handles infractions and violations of the
bylaws.
My motivation for conducting this research is based on my current role as a professional
within a major research university where I work with athletes and college athletics, requiring me

1

to interpret NCAA policy as it pertains to intercollegiate athletic finances. I am also an avid fan
of college athletics so my interest in this subject matter dates back to watching college athletics
as a child. The idea of a system of pay for play as a structure for college athletics has interested
me since I began working with college athletics and especially in recent years as the topic has
gained momentum.
Judge Wilkin (2014) wrote in her decision on the O’Bannon v. NCAA case that “College
sports generate a tremendous amount of interest, as well as revenue and controversy. Interested
parties have strong and conflicting opinions about the best policies to apply in regulating these
sports” (p. 98). She went on to write that other criticisms against the NCAA and its policies have
been raised and that the inequities in college athletics should be challenged by reforms within the
NCAA, its member institutions, or by Congress (2014). One could argue that Judge Wilkin was
referring to the NCAA rule on amateurism for student-athletes and the pressure it (NCAA) has
felt regarding pay for play in college athletics.
The NCAA is a complex organization that relies on its member institutions to vote on
proposals for policy making and deciding new, or updating current, legislation. The NCAA is
represented by over 1100 institutions, more than 100 conferences, tens of thousands of athletic
administrators spread amongst its membership institutions, and almost 500,000 student-athletes.
Each division within the NCAA governs itself on matters that concern their membership, which
are the institutions of that division. Members of each division vote on policy matters and
legislative affairs that will affect their institutions. Any change in legislation requires
participation from each division. NCAA committees comprised of members from the institutions
propose legislative changes to their respective divisions which are then debated and ultimately
voted on by the members of that division through their legislative process. However, there are

2

times when issues arise that affect the entire NCAA membership population. When an issue
presents itself that will affect the entire NCAA memberships, there is a group of committees
representing all three divisions of the NCAA structure that make recommendations to the
membership so each division is treated equally (NCAA.org).
Since the inception of the NCAA and its amateurism rule, the organization has been
continually challenged through legal action and media pressure. The concept of pay for play for
college athletes has been at the forefront of these challenges, yet the amateurism rule is still in
place forbidding it. Kay Hawes (2000) writes that the amateurism rule has been full of issues that
have come and gone since its inception in the early 1950s and that the debate over the
application of the rules is far from over. Hawes (2000) goes on to explain that the debate in
recent years has changed from the NCAA attempting to maintain purity of the athletes to
questioning whether the athletes are receiving their fair share considering the revenue that is
generated through athletics by the institutions. Courts have routinely confirmed restrictions to
athletes that bolster the ideology of amateurism, yet the NCAA continues to be challenged in
court based on its rules regarding amateurs (Lazaroff, 2007). In the past few years, cases such as
the Ed O’Bannon antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and the Northwestern University football
team suing for the ability to unionize for workplace rights have added fuel to a fire that has been
smoldering within the NCAA for some time. As these issues continue to grow, and because of
the implications they have for student-athletes, institutions, and the NCAA, it is important for us
to understand why the NCAA has rules such as amateurism in place and how potential changes
to those rules might impact the future of collegiate athletics, student-athletes, and the institutions
at which they participate in sports.

3

James L. Shulman and William G. Bowen in The Game of Life: College Sports and
Educational Values (2001), stress that this is an important topic to study because intercollegiate
athletics is one way higher education institutions gain visibility, utilizing this medium as a
manner to communicate with parents, students, alumni and society. Framing this problem are the
large amounts of revenue that college athletic departments bring to their institutions based on the
performance of their student-athletes; the student-athletes themselves, who gain little to no
monetary reward; the media outcry for college athletics to enact a pay for play system in college
athletics; and the legal issues that have plagued the NCAA since its inception. In this study I will
examine how pay for play has influenced college athletics, particularly how the legal battles have
altered the policies of the NCAA. As I will explain, this issue is important to study because of
the impact college athletics has on institutions of higher education.
This background examination will review both sides of the debate of a college athletics
pay for play system by (a) providing evidence and opinions from many who feel college athletes
deserve monetary payment for athletic performance; (b) providing the counter argument of those,
including the NCAA, that wish to uphold the rule of amateurism; and (c) by analyzing the legal
battles and the court cases with an underlying theme of the battle between pay for play and
amateurism that have become commonplace for the NCAA. A theme that will be noticeable
with this research is the manner by which the lawsuits have been filed by the plaintiffs against
the NCAA. That would be the application of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Many of the court cases
the NCAA has faced have been based on antitrust allegations, and the plaintiff’s usage of the
Sherman Antitrust Act has been an effective tool in bringing charges against the NCAA.
Adopted in 1890 the Sherman Antitrust Act was originally enacted to stop businesses that were
operating with monopolistic tendencies and to prohibit trusts. In recent decades institutions have

4

been adept at applying the Sherman Antitrust Act in their lawsuits against the NCAA due to the
organizations operating procedure and what the institutions refer to as their cartel-like behavior.
As I present the following cases the theme of the Sherman Antitrust act will be evident.
Most of the literature in this review is from the mainstream media reports/accounts. The
basis for this debate and its resulting arguments has been circulated through the media for years,
with the media being the driver of the debate, and with the NCAA and many within the
institutions who work with college athletics not taking part. However, the debate has been
gaining momentum in recent years and is gaining recognition by even the most high-ranking
officials in the NCAA, postsecondary institutions across the United States, and the athletic
conferences of which they are members.
Research Questions
Since the NCAA established the amateurism rule for college athletes in the 1950s, the
rule has been challenged by member institutions in many forms, including the legal cases
brought against the NCAA and institutions that test its limits. During these cases the NCAA has
both staunchly defended its rule in the courts and levied heavy-handed penalties on the
institutions that violate its rules. This is evidenced as Branch (2014) points to the colleges that
have been able to win many liability cases utilizing the “student-athlete” defense. As the college
sports culture has grown and media reports have fueled fan interest, more and more scrutiny has
been focused on the NCAA and the way it handles its member institutions and their studentathletes. In this context, this study will examine the following research questions to determine
how the NCAA and its amateurism rule have been affected:
1) How has the NCAA evolved during a time of persistent legal encounters due to the
treatment of student-athletes?

5

2) How have the conditions in college athletics participation changed for student-athletes
based on NCAA policy?
3) How does the debate about pay for play continue to raise questions about the cultural
significance of intercollegiate athletics?
Significance of this Study
This issue is a vital and important topic to study within postsecondary education because
college athletics play an important role within institutions of higher education, and because
athletics have become a significant source of income. As Jordan Bass, Claire C.
Schaeperkoetter, and Kyle S. Bunds (2015) point out, “Intercollegiate athletics, and the current
NCAA governance model, is at a crossroads likely not seen in the long and elaborate history of
the organization” (p. 88), which is why this topic is important and timely to study within the
realm of postsecondary education. People who advocate for pay for play have argued for many
years that the institutions for which a college athlete competes have exploited the athletes for the
revenue they generate. On the other side of the argument, the opponents of pay for play
specifically highlight the athletic scholarships that are given to college athletes to compensate
them for their play (Haden, 2001).
I am presenting an historical analysis of pay for play vs. amateurism through a legal lens
because I feel it provides the strongest framework for defining the problem. I initially planned to
conduct a qualitative research study based on interviews of key stakeholders, but ultimately felt
that access to essential and influential subjects would be limited. I also decided upon this avenue
of research because I felt that even if I was able to interview important key stakeholders
surrounding the pay for play vs. amateurism debate, I wouldn’t get enough information to
achieve recognition for the issue as an important topic within higher education.

6

Key Events in the History of the NCAA
The following chronological list details key events within college athletics and the
modern NCAA, showing interaction between the NCAA, athletic programs of institutions of
higher education, and the United States court system. These events are important to mention
because they include violations by college athletic departments and the pattern of enforcement
by the NCAA of its amateurism rule, which has contributed to the argument of pay for play
(Smith, 2011).
In 1890, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is enacted into law. The Sherman Antitrust Act
prohibited monopolies forming within American industry. It would later be cited on several
occasions in college athletics reform (Smith, 2011).
In 1952, the NCAA makes the first application of its new rules by levying the “Death
Penalty” on the University of Kentucky basketball program for paying its players and utilizing
ineligible players. The Death Penalty is the harshest form of punishment handed out by the
NCAA. It can result in the loss of a sports season. The NCAA asks other institutional members
to boycott playing Kentucky for a year and also bans Kentucky from the season-ending
basketball tournament (Smith, 2011). The Southeastern Conference, along with the NCAA
which was in its infancy at that point, decides to test their policing powers and eliminates
Kentucky from competition for an entire season (Byers and Hammer, 1997).
In 1975, the seven major conferences and other independent institutions meet to discuss
reorganizing the NCAA to assist the needs of major college football programs. In 1976, the
College Football Association is formed to discuss reform for college football, but it is mostly
concerned with promoting the college sport and increasing revenue for college football through
television contracts (Smith, 2011).

7

In 1981, The Center for Athletes Rights and Education (CARE) adopts a bill of rights for
college athletics. It determines that athletes can form unions to bargain for collective agreements
(Smith, 2011).
In 1987, the NCAA levies the Death Penalty for a second time. This time, Southern
Methodist University (SMU) football program is barred from playing for a year after an
investigation reveals that the university was making cash payments to a number of players,
which includes recruiting violations. Initially SMU is banned from post season bowl games for
two seasons and loses 45 scholarships for both seasons as well, but when the NCAA
investigation reveals that SMU has continued to pay its players after receiving the original
penalty, the NCAA levies the death penalty (Dodds, 2015). This is an important ruling in the
modern era of the NCAA because the decision to give SMU the death penalty was met with
criticism. The mainstream media subsequently began to write about a pay for play model in
college athletics based on the sports revenue that had been increasing over the years (Smith,
2011).
In 1989, The Knight Foundation creates a commission on college athletics to promote
reform. It is led by university ex-presidents and is tasked with determining the best way to
reform the institutional structure of college athletics (Smith, 2011).
In 1999, the NCAA moves its headquarters to Indianapolis, Indiana, and creates the
“home” of amateur sports. It is important to note that a highlight of the new office in Indiana is
continuing the “amateur” model of college athletics (Smith, 2011).
In 1999, The Drake Group Conference is formed to eradicate corruption in college
athletics. Jon Ericson, the former provost of Drake University, organizes the group and creates
the National Association for College Athletic Reform (Smith, 2011).

8

In 1999, The NCAA agrees to an 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS television for
coverage of the college basketball championship. Basketball reform thus becomes more difficult
because the tournament contract generates nearly all of the funding of the NCAA. It again
sparks a larger debate about the revenue generated by college athletics and pay for play for
college athletes (Smith, 2011).
In 2003, NCAA President Myles Brand cites two major areas of concern: the low
graduation rates in football and men’s basketball, and how much college athletics has risen in
cost. He specifically cites these two sports because they are the largest revenue streams for most
institutions’ athletic departments. He is concerned with the public outcry for adopting a
professional model in college athletics where the athletes should be paid for their participation
(Smith, 2011).
In 2003, the NCAA levies heavy sanctions on the University of Michigan basketball
program after an investigation reveals major monetary violations from the 1990s. It is
determined that a booster for the university had been supplying some of the players with regular
cash payments throughout their time at the school. Aside from the removal of championship
banners and vacated seasons (removing those seasons from the record books), the institution is
also ordered to disassociate from the players for specific time periods during which the violations
occurred. Once again, media sources claim that the student-athletes were only using the money
to get by and that they should have been paid for the amount of revenue they brought to the
institution (M.GoBlue.com, 2013).
In 2005, NCAA president Myles Brand reemphasizes the amateurism model of college
athletics and reinforces that the student-first model of college athletics is the proper form for

9

participation. He reaffirms that this model is not based on financial considerations but is in
response to more media scrutiny on the revenue created through college athletics (Smith, 2011).
In 2006, the White v. NCAA antitrust suit is filed by former college athletes, challenging
the financial limitations set on athletic scholarships. The argument made in White is based on
the fact that the amount of athletic scholarships is set below an institution’s cost of attendance.
The judge in the case sides with the ex-athletes in 2008, prompting the NCAA to create a
student-athlete fund of $10 million (Smith, 2011).
In 2010, a lawsuit is filed charging the NCAA with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act
of 1890. Former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon originally files the suit, and it becomes
known as the O’Bannon v. NCAA case. The suit alleges that video games producers illegally
used college athletes’ likenesses in their games without consent, and that college athletes should
be compensated as such (Smith, 2011).
In 2011, a report is published by the National College Players Association claiming that
the college athletic scholarship model is flawed and that many college athletes are living at or
below the poverty level. The NCAA takes the report seriously and creates the Miscellaneous
Expense Allowance for athletes that would cover up to $2,000 above the full scholarship amount.
Shortly thereafter, a large number of schools that cannot afford to make the payments sign-on to
override the legislation, stating it is a recruiting tool; the NCAA suspends the legislation
indefinitely (Huma and Staurowsky, 2011).
In 2014, Electronic Arts (EA) and The Collegiate Licensing Company, which were both
co-defendants with the NCAA in the O’Bannon suit, depart from the case and reach a $40
million settlement that would pay as much $4,000 to as many as 100,000 current and former
athletes who had their likenesses copied in the EA video games since 2003. In August of 2014,

10

the judge rules against the NCAA, stating that it violated antitrust laws in the O’Bannon case.
The judgment is a monumental decision because many in the media feel that the ruling will open
the door to a more professional model of college athletics, in which the athletes can be paid for
their performance (CBSSports.com, 2014). However, in 2015, a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejects the ruling that the NCAA must pay current and
former players for the use of their likenesses. The court went on to state that while the NCAA
violated the antitrust rules, the dollar amount in the original ruling was arbitrary and violated the
NCAA’s amateurism model (Stripling, 2015).

11

Chapter Two: Brief Literature Review and Research Method
Literature Review
The NCAA. The idea of pay for play has been around since the beginning of college
athletics. Intercollegiate athletics was originally designed to allow talented students the ability to
engage in an extracurricular activity while they earned their academic degree that would lead
them into a profession (Mitten, 2000). The first college athletic competition was a rowing regatta
in 1852 between Harvard and Yale Universities, in which Harvard employed a coxswain who
was not enrolled at the institution (Smith, 2011). Yale challenged the outcome of the race due to
the non-student status of the coxswain, thus beginning the long-standing debate regarding
college athletics and fairness. Athletes at institutions at the time were receiving payments or
other forms of compensation to compete in athletic events. Many times these athletes were not
even enrolled at the institution and were recruited to help gain an advantage. It wasn’t
uncommon for players to compete for non-collegiate teams as well and to receive payment for
their play. College baseball players would play for town teams or at summer resorts for
payment, and there was no agreed upon definition establishing these players as amateurs (Smith,
2011). Colleges had set up rules for the length of time a student could play to benefit them, thus
creating advantages for times when certain players who excelled in their sport were being
utilized by playing for sometimes up to eight years for an institution (Smith, 2011).
Throughout the early part of the century, college athletics could, at best, be described as
being run with a win-at-all-costs mentality. Colleges would hire athletes who didn’t attend their
institutions to compete, bringing them in to attend college for financial advantages (Thelin,
1996). Baseball players were paid during the summer and athletes would cheat in the classroom
to maintain enrollment so they could continue to play. Coaches were unethical, forcing their

12

athletes to play more than study, and there was also collusion between some faculty and athletes
to allow them to stay on the field in exchange for good grades. Meanwhile, sports continued to
grow in popularity, which resulted in the commercialization of college sports and the expansion
of campuses by building costly stadiums (Smith, 2011). It became obvious that something
needed to be done to regulate the college athletic scene and the athletes who participated.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had been founded in 1905 to
institute rules and regulations in college athletics, but it went largely ignored by the almost all of
the large colleges and universities, beginning “as a small group of colleges lacking status, unity,
or real power to lead intercollegiate reform” (Smith, 2011, p. 52). It was formed initially to
institute rules for the brutal sport of football after many injuries and even deaths had occurred.
The rules took effect; however, the major universities that competed in all athletic activities
refused to join the NCAA, reasoning that they wouldn’t want to relinquish any of their power to
the smaller institutions (Smith, 2011). As college football grew in popularity, so did the revenue
stream. After World War II, the NCAA adopted the “Sanity Code” as a means to regulate athlete
recruitment and financial aid; the code, however, failed to stop institutions abusing the rules
(Smith, 2011). Sperber (1998) points out that in the early 1950s, during a campaign to address
the scandals that had been ever-present in college sports and to fight against court rulings that
stated college athletes were in fact professionals, the NCAA created the term “student-athlete”
and encouraged all of its member institutions to adhere to it. Starkey (2014) claims that the
NCAA concocted the term “student-athlete as a way to exploit college athletes and to keep them
from benefitting from their athletic talents. It was a way for the NCAA to espouse academia in a
scandal riddled enterprise" (p. 1).

13

In 1951, the NCAA named Walter Byers as president and he wasted no time in
establishing the current form of the amateurism rule for college athletes. The rule was
incorporated to regulate the illegal payment to college athletes and to reform the college athletic
landscape to one where college players were deemed separate from professional players. The
model worked and soon the rules would be tested, resulting in NCAA intervention and
investigation at institutions across America.
Collegiate Amateurism. The NCAA has upheld its ideal of amateurism since its
founding. Upon accepting an offer to attend an institution, a student-athlete signs a National
Letter of Intent (NLI) to the university. This NLI is a “binding agreement between a prospective
student-athlete and an NLI member institution” (Nationalletter.org). This is the first step for a
student-athlete to enroll at an NCAA institution as an amateur. The main point behind the
principle of amateurism is, because these athletes are not professionals, they cannot be
compensated for their participation in athletic competition. The actual rule as written by the
NCAA in its manual states: “Member institutions’ athletics programs are designed to be an
integral part of the educational program. The student-athlete is considered an integral part of the
student body, thus maintaining a clear line of demarcation between college athletics and
professional sports” (2011, p.65). Many writers and researchers have challenged this notion, as
the landscape of college athletics has changed and, in their view, made the idea of amateurism
obsolete. Taylor Branch, an outspoken advocate for paying college athletes, feels that the rule of
amateurism hurts college athletes while deepening the pockets of the other involved parties, such
as the NCAA and the colleges and universities where these athletes attend and play. Branch
recently wrote that, “Everything stands on the implicit presumption that preserving amateurism
is necessary for the well-being of college athletes. But while amateurism – and the free labor it

14

provides – may be necessary to the preservation of the NCAA, and perhaps to the profit margins
of various interested corporations and educational institutions, what if it doesn’t benefit the
athletes? What if it hurts them” (2011, p .7)?
With the universities, their conferences, and even the NCAA making billions of dollars
every year on the sale of college athletics to the public, many people have challenged the rule of
amateurism. Some argue that the athletes who compete in big-time athletics for institutions
should be considered athletes first and students second since they were specifically recruited to
that institution to play a sport first, and receive an education second. As Dave Kindred writes in
The Sporting News, “Bigtime college athletics pretends to be holy amateurism even as it
practices professionalism…If education happens to be a player, fine. But the player’s first job as his one-year, revocable scholarship tells him - is to play ball” (1999, p. 71). However, Nocera
(2015) argues that institutions are not equipped to manage a multibillion-dollar entertainment
venture without turning a blind eye to certain practices and taking care of the athletes who are
not going to put much effort into earning a degree.
The amateurism rule does have benefits for university athletic departments. Hruby (2014)
states that amateurism allows both larger and smaller schools to filter every dollar from ticket
sales, television contracts, and gift money that isn’t accounted for through scholarships toward
their expanding facilities and the salaries of their coaches and administrators. However, there are
varying views on the concept of the athletic scholarship. Dorfman (2013) highlights that student
athletes in the revenue generating sports are on full athletic scholarships that cover tuition, fees,
room and board, which equates to educational benefits and living expenses. He goes on to
explain that the scholarship also includes access to professional coaching and state of the art
training facilities to which, without a scholarship, they would not otherwise have access.

15

However, many feel the idea of a scholarship for an athlete is another form of pay, which also is
in opposition to the amateurism rule. The argument is that institutions are awarding scholarships
based on athletic ability, not educational value, which should be the very purpose for the student
to be attending the institution in the first place. Ken Reed, a writer for Ralph Nadar’s sport
reform project, The League of Fans, writes, “Even Walter Byers, the NCAA’s executive director
from 1951 to 1987, is now calling for the banning of the athletics scholarship. Byers
persuasively argues that assistance to athletes should be based on financial need and academic
talents not athletic ability” (nadar.org, 2011, p. 1). Reed goes on to state, “It’s time to end the lie
that is big-time college athletics today. To do so, we’re left with two choices: 1) Integrate
athletics and athletes into the educational mission of colleges and universities by eliminating
athletic scholarships along with special admissions for college athletes; or 2) Openly
acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports…” (Nadar.org, 2011, p. 1).
So why has the NCAA and its rule on amateurism come under such scrutiny? The
biggest argument against the idea of amateurism has everything to do with revenue. As Johnson
(2014) argues, the NCAA is a fully commercialized multi-billion dollar business. All sources of
income generated from college athletics go to the NCAA, the coaches, the schools, and all others
involved, excluding the athletes. Many people are, and have been for quite some time, calling
foul against the rule, arguing that universities are exploiting athletes for personal profit. They
are calling for an end to amateurism so that college athletes can get paid for their contributions
on the athletic fields, which generate so much revenue for not only the school, but also the
conference for which they are a member and he NCAA.
However, it should be noted that not all college athletics generate revenue for the
institutions. There are actually only a few sports at each college that are considered “revenue

16

generating” sports. For the purpose of this study I will be focusing on the two sports that
generate the most revenue: men’s football and men’s basketball. The argument for paying
college athletes has surrounded the revenue generating sports, but what about the rest of an
institution’s athletic programs? If the NCAA were to concede the amateurism rule, would the
athletes in the non-revenue generating sports be compensated for their play on the field? What
about the players on the revenue generating sports who do not start, or rarely play? Would they
be compensated evenly with the players who contribute more success toward the team’s
performance? Seth Davis, writing in Sports Illustrated, argues this point using the University of
Texas football team as an example: “Clearly the starting quarterback generates more revenue for
Texas than does the third-string safety. Would the NCPA argue those two players should be paid
the same? There’s nothing fair about that” (sportsillustrated.cnn.com, 2011, p. 2). Davis also
pokes some holes in the opposition view of changing the rule on amateurism by stating:
The only place this idea is gaining momentum is in the media. There is no movement –
none – within the actual governing structure of the NCAA to professionalize college athletes.
It’s not just that it would ruin the amateurism ideal. It’s that from a business standpoint, it makes
no sense. (sportsillustrated.cnn.com, 2011, p. 2).
Not only does keeping the amateur status principle alive in college sports help assure the
competition remains pure, it also creates a good image for the institutions, which helps with
enrollment. Lawrence Kahn points out in Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports
(2007) that
In this consumer-oriented era for higher education, universities need to maintain their
appeal to future applicants, many of whom are future alumni or future voters for state
legislatures, and having successful sports programs may be one way to do this. The

17

popularity of college sports events and of schools with big-time athletic programs
suggests that the idea of amateurism may have some market value. (p. 224).
Pay for Play in Collegiate Athletics. In March of 2014 Shabazz Napier, a basketball
player for the University of Connecticut (UConn), shined the spotlight back onto the pay for play
debate when he admitted that he and other college athletes went hungry some nights because
they didn’t have enough money for food (Waldron, 2014). While this is a documented problem,
it was the timing of his comments that put the NCAA on notice. Napier and UConn were one
game away from winning the NCAA National Basketball title when Napier brought public
attention to the pay for play debate (Waldron, 2014).
In the modern era of college athletics, the conversation about athletes earning
compensation began to simmer among the media in the late 1980s after the NCAA levied the
Death Penalty ban on SMU. Since that time more and more writers, both in the media and in
academia, have asked the question whether college athletes should be paid and what their role is
on their respective campuses. There is no denying that the revenue generated by big time college
athletics is at the heart of the issue of pay for play. Rasche (1997) says that the increase in
revenues generated by institutions through the student athletes and their athletic endeavors has
aided the concept of compensating athletes beyond the scope of their athletic scholarship. The
question at the center of the argument is the amateur status of the college athlete as defined by
the NCAA in the 1950s. In 1989, Lee Goldman challenged the notion of college athletes as
amateurs, an argument that has reached a boiling point in today’s media. “The NCAA’s
amateurism rules are ripe for review” (Goldman, 1989, p. 207). Mondello and Beckham (2002)
argue that amateurism is a falsehood that is meant to keep athletes from being considered
employees and deny them the right to benefit from the revenue that is generated through

18

intercollegiate athletics. Amateur athletics at major Division I colleges is big business, and is
marketed, packaged and sold as such. NCAA member schools gain additional income for their
athletic programs from the sale of television and radio rights to their games, not to mention the
direct recognition for successful teams that results in more alumni contributions and increased
enrollments from students who want to be associated with successful intercollegiate athletics
(Goldman, 1989).
As revenues increased over time, more scrutiny surrounding the college athletes and their
contributions to colleges and universities gained increased attention from the media. Perhaps if
the dollar amounts generated by college athletics weren’t so great, there wouldn’t be much
argument. Wilbon (2011) argues that the money generated has even helped establish TV
networks, as the best basketball and football players from the Big Ten Conference have helped
produce a conference television network that is worth at least tens of millions of dollars.
However, none of the athletes see a benefit from that. The issue that arises is one of exploitation,
as some critics see it, of student-athletes by institutions. Despite more and more media coverage
and increasing commercialization of college athletics, which generates millions of dollars for
institutions, the NCAA sees no reason to compensate college athletes because by rule, they are
amateurs. Pekron (2000) views this as the NCAA playing the role of a “money hungry tyrant”
while the athletes serve as the indentured help. It is the amateurism rule that allows the NCAA to
avoid litigation of antitrust laws due to the amateur status of the athletes and the educational
goals tied to that status. The outcome produced by this model means that even though studentathletes are the main reason for the revenue stream in college athletics, they do not have the
ability to reap the benefits (Chin, 1993).

19

One of the main reasons that the pay for play argument began to gain steam in the 1990s
was the vast commercialization of college athletics and the notion that colleges and universities
were exploiting the athletes as a revenue stream. Benford (2007) points out that commercialism
in college sports is everywhere – from advertising all over sports arenas to the licensing and logo
deals with apparel companies. The questions that surfaced during the 1990s were: Are these
students first or athletes first? What is the primary reason for this student to be on the college
campus? Is the reason to get an education or to compete on the field, win games, and thus
generate dollars for the institution? The NCAA utilizes an amateur/education model, which is
based upon the idea that college sports aren’t commercial. Michael Acain (1997) writes in
Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College Athletes, that college athletics is
more of a commercial/education model and posits that as such college athletics is a commercial
enterprise that should be privy to considerations such as other commercial industries. He goes on
to state, “By recognizing that the student-athlete is an integral part of the college sports
commodity, the model favors paying student-athletes for their contribution to the viability of the
product” (Acain, 1997, p. 312).
The heart of the issue lies within the rules and regulations that the NCAA has held onto
so tightly since the 1950s that detractors argue college athletics has completely outgrown. This
has led to the modern-era pay for play argument. Christopher Parent (2004) summarizes this
thought in Forward Progress – An Analysis of Whether Student-Athletes Should Be Paid: “The
rallying cry of those advocating pay-for-play is that many athletes live below the poverty line, a
fact which, in light of the revenue generated by college athletes, is simply unacceptable” (p.
237). The counter argument by the NCAA has always been that the student-athletes are
compensated for their play through their athletic scholarship. However, Parent is skeptical: “The

20

more profound debate is whether the cost of a college education (whether it be full tuition or not)
is adequate compensation for student-athletes (pp. 241-242).
College coaches’ salaries is another topic that stirs the pay for play debate. Tsitsos and
Nixon (2012) assert that successful college coaches are receiving multimillion dollar
compensation packages so that institutions can have dominant athletic programs. These coaches’
salaries have increased dramatically even while there is a debate over whether college athletes
should be paid for their play (Baumbach, 2014). Yankah (2015) points out that countless college
coaches are the highest paid public employees in their respective states, and that doesn’t include
endorsements and gifts. Even as the revenues generated for colleges and universities through
athletics has skyrocketed into the millions, the NCAA still holds that college athletes cannot be
paid for their participation in athletics because they are amateurs.
College athletics has become a big money making tool for colleges and universities
across the United States. Over the past few decades college athletics has gained more relevance
and increased profits drastically for all Division I colleges and universities. Gilbert Gaul (2015)
notes that since the early 1980s, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) has paid around $2.2 billion
to its member institutions and, in recent years, these numbers have increased annually from
around $100 million, in the early 2000s, to $293 million today. In 2014, the amount was
expected to reach over $300 million, which equates to $21 million a year for its member schools
(Gaul, 2015). College athletics has generated billions of dollars not only for the institutions
themselves, but also for the governing body of intercollegiate athletics, the National Collegiate
Athletic Association. In April of 2010, Thomas O’Toole of USA Today wrote that the NCAA
“announced it has reached a 14-year, nearly $11 billion agreement with CBS and Turner Sports
for the TV rights to a 68-team tournament” (2010, p. 1) for Division I men’s college basketball.

21

However, behind all this success for college athletics and the billions of dollars it
generates, there is a disparity that cannot be overlooked. The idea of a scholarship seems fair in
some instances, but in many cases, the scholarships provided by the institutions do not meet the
complete cost of attendance for the student-athletes, which leaves them looking for other ways to
get by. Ramogi Huma and Ellen J. Staurowsky explain in their report, “The Price of Poverty in
Big Time College Sport” (2011), “….the study estimates the fair market value of big time
football and basketball players to be in the hundreds of thousands annually while the NCAA
restricts the value of the full scholarship to a level of compensation that is at or below the
poverty level for the vast majority of athletes” (p. 6).
College athletes are given the task of representing their institution athletically, yet also
maintaining themselves academically, all while being compensated at a level of poverty. Many
writers, such as Taylor Branch, have gone so far as to point out that college athletes are being
exploited by their institutions for their athletic ability so that the institutions may gain more
revenue from their athletic performances. Branch (2011) says:
For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or
recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its
existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic
confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of
young athletes. (2011, p. 2)
Many feel that college athletes should be paid for their contributions to the institutions
they represent. The better the product on the field, the more recognition the institution receives.
The more a team wins, the more revenue the school generates in ticket sales and merchandise.
For example, the University of Texas athletic department generated $165.7 million in revenue in

22

2013, of which $58.8 million came from rights and licensing (Gaines, 2014). Yet the athletes
whose performances were the direct result of that increased revenue do not see any increase in
their scholarship. So why is this? It goes back to the governing body of collegiate athletics, the
NCAA and its stance on amateurism.
Research Method
Sample. I have identified the cases in the literature review of pay for play for which
there is a consensus regarding them as the most important. I will review these cases thoroughly
taking into consideration some of the rulings the NCAA has made against member institutions
that have been found in violation of the rules and bylaws. In reviewing these cases I utilized the
process of shepardizing to determine which cases were referenced in other cases. The process of
shepardizing is using Shepard’s Citations to identify cases that reference each other related to the
topic or lawsuit one is researching. This process was an important tool for me in determining the
lawsuits that make up my research. I began my research with a basis of cases that I wanted to
research, however Sherpardizing the O’Bannon v NCAA case yielded results on other cases that
warranted my attention. Shepardizing has been an important process for me in conducting this
research. The essential cases are as follows:
1) NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University Oklahoma
2) White V. NCAA
3) O’Bannon v. NCAA and EA Sports
I will also give brief summaries of the following cases because they are important to the
debate of pay for play vs amateurism:
4) Kent Waldrep Workers Compensation Lawsuit
5) Northwestern University Football Players Unionization Case

23

6) Jenkins v. NCAA
I am not conducting a deeper analysis of the Kent Waldrep and Northwestern cases
because they were not lawsuits against the NCAA. They do have an impact on the pay for play
debate, but did not directly involve the NCAA. I am not conducting a comprehensive review of
the Jenkins case because it currently in process at the time of this writing, and hasn’t approached
any resolution. However, these cases are important to the pay for play debate which is why I am
conducting a brief overview of them and the relevance they have to the topic.
The reason I studied The University of Oklahoma Board of Regents case is because this
lawsuit set the precedent for the NCAA’s amateurism rule. It was also the first case in which a
major university challenged the NCAA directly based on the Sherman Act. Although the NCAA
essentially lost its argument, the amateurism rule was stated by the court as an integral part of
American college athletics. The NCAA has referred back to this judgment in other court battles
since to justify its position on amateurism.
White v. NCAA was another case in which the athletes in the suit alleged the NCAA
violated the Sherman Act. I am utilizing this case because it is a good example of athletes from
different institutions filing a lawsuit together against the NCAA. This case is a good research
tool because we begin to see athletes come together to take on the NCAA through legal action
for what they believe are monetary injustices.
The Ed O’Bannon case is paramount to this study and is chosen due to its significance on
the landscape of the NCAA and the perception of amateurism that it maintains. Not only is this a
landmark case to study because of the outcomes, but also because of the opinions of everyone
involved.

24

The Kent Waldrep case is a good example to study because of the number of years the
case took working its way through the court system. This legal battle was an interesting case
because it did not directly involve the NCAA, yet the NCAA was a key figure surrounding the
debate in court. This case also is a good research tool because the basis of Waldrep’s argument
was that he was a university employee and thus didn’t fall under the amateurism rule of the
NCAA. I am choosing to incorporate the Northwestern Unionization case because it shines light
on a different way to look at the concept of the amateurism rule and how it can be interpreted.
Finally, I am studying Jenkins v. NCAA because of the ramifications that this case could have on
the NCAA and college athletics as a whole from a revenue generating aspect. This case is still
winding its way through the court system, but the attention it has gained gives the perception that
this could change college athletics, which makes it too important to ignore.
Since the argument of pay for play is focused directly on Division I universities in the
Power Five conferences, those institutions will be highlighted within my focus. The Power Five
conferences are the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten Conference, the Big 12 Conference,
the Pacific 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference. My research will also focus on the
lawsuits that have been brought against the NCAA throughout the years that have affected the
pay for play phenomena or have added to its legitimacy as a controversial issue that needs to be
studied. By researching the legal battle surrounding pay for play, I can study how the NCAA has
managed to emerge from each case and solidify the concept of a student-first athlete. The
literature that I will use is mainly going to be driven by the court cases studied, media reports
(both print and online resources), as well as scholarly and law journals that will enhance the
research.

25

Documents and Sequence of Steps. Unlike most HALE dissertations, my research relied
entirely on documents and reading rather than on surveys, interviews, or observations.
The method that I utilized in researching the court cases was to immerse myself into the
court documentation to gain a better understanding of each case, and these court documents were
the primary resources for my research. I utilized the Michigan State University Law College
Library to access the court documents that were needed for my research. I approached each case
with a basic understanding of what the case was about, but not fully knowledgeable of the
circumstances surrounding the case and how the case transpired. I read each case thoroughly
paying close attention to the arguments made by each side, the testimony from the experts for
each side, and the opinion of the judge presiding over the case.
In writing about the cases, I put much of my focus on the opinion by the presiding judge.
The White case was settled before a trial so the judge’s opinion was important to determine the
direction the case was heading. The judge’s opinion in the other cases was integral in the
outcome because they had the final say in the ruling, and each judge had strong opinions on both
the plaintiffs and defendants.
The next step I used when researching each case was to read the secondary sources from
outlets that reported on it both during and after the case had finished. I incorporated this process
into my method because it gave me a good understanding of the climate surrounding both sides
of the argument. In researching the secondary cases I utilized both scholarly journals, including
law journals, and media reports because both reported on different aspects of the case that I felt
were important to my research. The secondary sources were important because many of them
were written from a standpoint that exhibited a biased opinion for one or the other side of the
arguments. This aspect was crucial for my research because it helped me to understand why the

26

plaintiffs and defendants in each case were defiantly committed to their argument. In my final
write up of each case I relied heavily on the court documentation, but also weaved the secondary
sources in to give an understanding of why the case was argued in a certain manner.
The last step I took with my method was to include events that transpired outside the
cases that had either a direct or an indirect impact on the case or were affected by the case. The
events that I included, in some cases, gave insight to how the NCAA enforced its rules and also
how institutions have adapted to the rules. I incorporated these events because they added
credence to each case and strengthened my overall research.
Many of the resources I utilized for my research have been in an online format. Studying
my cases and sources online gave me easy access to many of the materials needed. Although I
did utilize some hard copy materials, most of my resources were online. I found that this method
of research made it easier for me to find documents related to the older cases and to gain access
to sources I didn’t initially think of when starting my research.

27

Chapter Three: The Sherman Antitrust Act and Televising Collegiate Sporting Events
The first case I will be analyzing for this study is the Board of Regents of Oklahoma v.
NCAA. This was the first case in which the NCAA was challenged on the basis of antitrust
violations and ultimately created a roadmap on how to bring litigation against the NCAA. This
case was also important due to the strong backing the concept of amateurism received from the
Supreme Court Justices that wrote the dissenting opinion.
Sherman Antitrust Act History
On July 2, 1890, President Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman Antitrust Act into law
as legislation to prohibit trusts. The act, which was the first federal antitrust law, gave Congress
the constitutional power to regulate and monitor interstate commerce and trade. Named for
Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who served as Secretary of Treasury under President Rutherford
B. Hayes, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first federal law of its kind. The main goal of the
act was to maintain fair trade by monitoring how trusts were set up within companies. Trusts
were set up by stockholders in several different companies wherein they arranged their stocks
into a single group of trustees. The trustees would then give the stockholders certificates that
privileged them to individual shares of centralized earnings of the companies that were managed
by said trustees. This method of business had become commonplace in most major industries
which caused monopolies and became an obstacle to fair competition (ourdocuments.gov). Prior
to this becoming a federal measure, many states had enacted similar legislation. However these
smaller legislative acts were limited to intrastate businesses (ourdocuments.gov).
The Sherman Antitrust Act gave authorization to the federal government to seek out
trusts and to expunge them. Any trust that was formed that caused a restraint in trade or
commerce, and included several states or other nations, was deemed a violation of the Act and

28

determined to be illegal. Any person or company caught violating the Act faced fines and jail
time, and any businesses or persons that suffered losses due to these established trusts could sue
the violating companies in federal court for up to triple the damages (ourdocuments.gov).
Law INFO.com (2004) reports that the act was rarely used in the first decade after its
adoption and, when it was invoked, the results were not successful. The only cases that were
successful in utilizing the Sherman Antitrust Act were those that challenged labor unions; but,
since labor unions were already considered illegal, the act played a small role. The main culprit
behind the lack of results from the law was the terminology used in defining the law itself, by the
way it was written and the application of the law, along with intense pressure from politicians
that backed the trusts, and a clear lack of limited scope for judicial application (LINFO.com,
2004).
The first major challenge to the Act occurred five years after its adoption when, in 1895,
it faced intense scrutiny in front of the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. E.C. Knight
Company (LINFO.com, 2004). In the ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the legal
application of the Act when it (the Court) sided with the American Sugar Refining Company,
ruling that it had not violated the Act even though, at the time, the company had almost a
complete monopolization on the sugar refining industry in the United States
(ourdocuments.com). The Supreme Court ruled that since the refineries were purchased within a
single state, there was no interstate acquisition, which would violate the Act (LINFO.com, 2004).
The E.C. Knight case appeared to be the demise of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the federal
government’s attempt at regulating trusts, until the turn of the century when President Theodore
Roosevelt successfully used the Act in his trust busting campaigns (ourdocuments.com).

29

At the turn of the century trusts were becoming more commonplace and there was
legitimate fear that large corporations would monopolize industry, regulate prices for goods and
services, and put smaller companies out of business. Early on in his presidency, Theodore
Roosevelt took action to tackle trusts, utilizing the Sherman Antitrust Act as legislation in his
crusade. The largest trust that he took on, and the one that gave Roosevelt the most notoriety –
earning him the nickname of the “trust buster,” – was his takedown of the Northern Securities
Company.
The Northern Securities Company was a railroad trust operated by J. P. Morgan, which
included railroad moguls James Hill and E. H. Harriman, that controlled a large portion of the
railroad shipping industry in the northern United States (ushistory.org). In 1902, President
Roosevelt tasked the U.S. Justice Department with breaking up the Northern Securities Company
on the grounds that it was a monopolistic corporation causing a restraint in trade. Relying on the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the federal government dismantled the corporation.
(theodorerooseveltcenter.org). The Northern Securities Company appealed the decision and the
case made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court narrowly ruled in favor of
the government with a 5-4 decision. As a result, the Northern Securities Company was dissolved,
breaking up the trust (ushistory.org).
The Sherman Antitrust Act continued to be applied successfully throughout the 20th
century, including the 1911 case against the Standard Oil Trust and, in 1982, against the
American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly (ushistory.org). Late in the 20th century,
however, there was a new set of plaintiffs looking to apply the Sherman Antitrust Act as a means
to break up another organization that was deemed by many to be operating as a monopoly.
Colleges, universities, and the athletes that represent them on the playing field began to take

30

exception to the way the NCAA was administering their policies. In 1890, Congress could have
never predicted that their antitrust act would play a pivotal role in the lawsuits that would be
levied against the governing body of college athletics.
The Sherman Antitrust Act and College Athletics
The first challenge to the NCAA that utilized the Sherman Antitrust Act came in the early
1980s when two universities, backed by the College Football Association (CFA), felt that the
NCAA’s television plan for college football games constituted a restraint of trade. The two
universities, the University of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma, felt that the NCAA’s
television plan unfairly fixed prices and didn’t allow for universities to negotiate their own
television rights. The case, which would come to be known as The Board of Regents of
Oklahoma v. NCAA, would wind its way through the court system, ultimately making it all the
way to the Supreme Court, who levied the final decision. In this section I will give a
comprehensive review of the case and the impact it has had on the NCAA, college athletes, and
the debate of pay for play versus the amateurism rule.
The Sherman Antitrust act is important to the pay for play debate in college sports
because of the manner in which it has been applied to the legal cases against the NCAA and the
rule of student-athletes as amateurs. In The Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA, it was
applied as a means to break apart the monopoly that the NCAA held over broadcasting rights by
not allowing competition to enter the broadcasting market; however, the Act would also be
applied subsequently to cases where athletes felt the NCAA was restricting their rights to profit,
arguing for compensation for their play.
College Football Association. The first live college football game to be broadcast on
television was in 1938 (Siegfried and Burba, 2004). At the time the NCAA didn’t regulate

31

individual universities on broadcast rights; the concept of universities televising games gained
momentum throughout the 1940s along with the popularity of television. As this trend grew,
conflict between NCAA members arose regarding broadcast rights in certain areas. In 1951,
sensing that the situation was getting out of control, the NCAA revoked its policy that allowed
individual universities the right to broadcast their games. The NCAA signed its first associationwide television contract with NBC in 1952. The contract allowed NBC to broadcast one college
football game on Saturdays, which also ensured that no other network would broadcast another
college football game, giving the NCAA a monopoly on the broadcast rights (Siegfried & Burba,
2004). The NCAA maintained this structure for over two decades although the revenue amounts
and networks would change from contract to contract. Broadcast times were scarce since the
contracts were limited to only one game per week; the number of times that a university could
appear in the game of the week was also limited, thus creating acceptance from all member
institutions anticipating that the broadcast would vary from school to school (Siegfried & Burba,
2004). However, schools being limited in the number of appearances wasn’t always the case.
The networks were allowed to select the schools that would play in the game, which resulted in
many of the games featuring only a few popular schools known for their football programs. This
meant that many teams never had the opportunity to play in the game of the week, which led to
resentment of the NCAA and their broadcast plan, and eventually led to the CFA (Siegfried and
Burba, 2004). This system of televising college football games would continue for many years
until it was challenged in the Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA case.
In 1977, after years of operating within the NCAA televising rule, 62 of the larger
member institutions of the NCAA formed the College Football Association (CFA) in an effort to
lobby for better televising rights (Siegfried and Burba, 2004). The goal of the CFA was to meet

32

demand from local markets that wanted to see the most popular teams’ games on television,
which would also ensure that those programs would receive increased revenue from the
broadcasts. Initially the CFA had some success, with an increase in TV appearances for the
larger college programs, but the equal revenue allotment among all the NCAA member
institutions remained the same due to the NCAA voting process (Siegfried & Burba, 2004). This
meant that the larger and more popular college football programs were getting more games
broadcast, but were not seeing a proportionally larger share to the revenues.
The CFA finally broke through in 1981 when it was offered a lucrative television deal by
NBC to pull their games from ABC and sell them independently to NBC. The contract, a 4-year
deal worth $180 million, was enticing for the CFA members; however, the NCAA warned the
CFA members that all colleges that agreed to the NBC offer would be banished (Siegfried &
Burba, 2004). The members of the CFA were hesitant to sign the contract with NBC because
being expelled from the NCAA meant that they would lose out on the revenue that was generated
through the men’s basketball tournament. As Siegfried and Burba (2004) put it, “The CFA,
designed to promote football, did not include enough popular teams to promise a successful
basketball tournament independent of the rest of the NCAA” (p. 3). It would also mean that they
wouldn’t be allowed to play in any of the football bowl games over which the NCAA had total
control. Facing these two harsh realities, the CFA finally relented and decided not to sign the
contract with NBC. Instead, the CFA decided to pursue legal action against the NCAA for what
it determined was cartel-like operations over the sale of football broadcast rights, constituting a
restraint in trade (Siegfried & Burba, 2004). The case, which eventually became the Board of
Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA and included the University of Georgia as a plaintiff, was
financed by the other members of the CFA (Siegfried & Burba, 2004). The overarching goal of

33

the CFA with the lawsuit was to break apart the monopoly that they felt the NCAA had with its
broadcast plan.
The CFA’s plans of signing a broadcast contract were put on hold while the Board of
Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA case wound its way through the courts. When the trial officially
ended, in which the plaintiffs along with the CFA were able to prove its case thus winning out in
court in the summer prior to the 1984 college football season, the CFA signed a one-year
contract with ABC to broadcast college football games. The Big Ten and the Pac Ten, who were
not members of the CFA, each signed a one year contract to broadcast their games on CBS
(Siegfried & Burba, 2004). The following year, the CFA negotiated a two-year contract with
ABC and ESPN for the 1985 and 1986 college football season, followed by two consecutive
four-year contracts with CBS and ESPN (from 1987-1990) and with ABC (which at that time
owned ESPN) for the 1991-1995 seasons (Siegfried & Burba, 2004).
The CFA was able to prosper beginning in 1984 due to the ruling in the Board of
Trustees of Oklahoma case because individual institutions were able to cooperatively negotiate
the television broadcast contracts at the time without venturing out on their own due to less risk.
Not many schools had the experience that the CFA did in negotiating contracts so operating
through the CFA made sense (Siegfried & Burba, 2004). However, that system began to change
with the rise of cable networks and the demand for college football. By the early- to mid-1990s,
the CFA began to lose ground in the broadcasting arena due to the rise of cable networks with
more options for schools, which ultimately led to its demise. Another significant factor that aided
in the downfall of the CFA was the addition of the Fox Network and other major cable networks
that were able to provide programming for the college football audience. As Siegfried and Burba
(2004) state, “the expansion of cable television in the 1980s and the entry of Fox as a fourth

34

over-the-air network acted as a catalyst for dissolution” (p. 9). They go on further to explain that
“after the CFA lost its authority to contract with television networks on behalf of its members it
temporarily returned to its role as an advocacy group in the NCAA” (p. 10). The increase in
competition for broadcasting sports, combined with the individual institutions and the major
conferences becoming increasingly more aggressive in pursuing broadcasting rights of their own
games both had a hand in causing the CFA to fold (Siegfried and Burba, 2004). On June 30,
1997, the CFA officially closed its books and split the remaining revenues it had among the
member institutions.
Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA. In 1981, the NCAA negotiated television
broadcast contracts with both ABC and CBS to carry college football games on Saturdays for the
1982-1985 seasons. Each broadcast company paid compensation to the NCAA members that
were being broadcast, the terms of which were negotiated directly with each institution (Board of
Regents v. NCAA). The NCAA devised the contract so that the broadcast of live college football
games would not have an adverse effect on the attendance for the games, limiting the number of
appearances for each institution; no institution would be allowed to sell the broadcast rights of its
team outside the guidelines that were set in the contract (Board of Regents v. NCAA). Many of
the institutions involved in these contracts were also a part of the CFA, which had negotiated a
contract with NBC for more liberal broadcasting rights for individual institutions. The NCAA
decided to take action against any NCAA member that participated with the CFA-NBC contract,
threatening disciplinary action. Both parties, not satisfied with the other’s arguments, initiated
legal action, taking their arguments to Federal District court, then to appeals courts, and finally to
the Supreme Court of the United States (Board of Regents v. NCAA).

35

In the next few pages I will go into detail about the Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. the
NCAA case, from the federal case, to the appeal, and then finally to the Supreme Court. I will
discuss how the rulings have affected the college athletics landscape since the Supreme Court
decision, the effect that the rulings had on the NCAA’s amateurism rule, and how that has
impacted the pay for play argument.
District Court. On September 8, 1981, with the backing of the CFA, the case of The
Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA was filed in the federal District Court of Western
Oklahoma with Judge Juan Guerrero Burciaga presiding. Over the course of the case, Judge
Burciaga would become very familiar with the NCAA, its policies, and the substance of the
television broadcast plan that was being targeted by the lawsuit. Burciaga would also come to
understand why the member institutions of the NCAA that were also members of the CFA were
dissatisfied with the broadcast plan, and why they felt that the plan created a restraint on trade
that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
In his ruling, Judge Burciaga (1982) outlined the detail surrounding the NCAA broadcast
plan, the reason why the lawsuit was filed, and the CFA members reasoning for wanting to
pursue a new television plan. Burciaga investigated the fact that the NCAA had maintained that
it was a voluntary organization and that at any time member institutions could leave the NCAA
to rid themselves of the overarching control of the organization. However, Burciaga also stated
that leaving the NCAA wasn’t a viable option for any of the institutions because opting out of
the NCAA meant that they could not compete in any of the other NCAA championships in other
sports (Burciaga, 1982). Burciaga concluded that the lawsuit’s reasoning was valid, since leaving
the NCAA wasn’t a “practical, feasible, nor desirable” (p. 7) option, proving that the NCAA had
control over the member institutions by limiting their broadcast options and supporting the

36

plaintiffs claim that the NCAA had a restraint of trade (Burciaga, 1982). The NCAA argued that
the plaintiff’s lawsuit was unfair because the plaintiffs were willing to obey some of the rules of
the NCAA but filed a lawsuit over other aspects of NCAA rules. Burciaga countered this
allegation by stating that the plaintiffs weren’t being spiteful with the lawsuit but, rather,
challenging the NCAA rules and regulations that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and, thus,
the standards of fair play, amateurism, and academic integrity, upon which the NCAA prides
itself (Burciaga, 1982).
In his opinion, Burciaga also questioned how the NCAA could separate itself from
college sports when financial revenues that treat college athletics as professional sports and as a
money making enterprise come into play. He opined that the NCAA’s willingness to maximize
revenues for itself through college athletics teems with professionalism even though the
organization avows amateurism (Burciaga, 1982). He went on to explain that the institutions in
the United States, even though they espouse higher education, are also business-like in nature,
competing against each other for students, faculty, and government grants. Additionally,
Burciaga wrote:
The same is true of college football. It is a business, and it must behave in a businesslike
manner to insure its future viability. The objectives and the past achievements of our
institutions of higher learning have earned them great praise and an exalted position in
our social fabric. Nonetheless, it is a business and a business operated by professionals.
Like any business, the schools which play intercollegiate football seek to maximize
revenue and minimize expense while at the same time maintaining the level of quality
which makes their product attractive to the buying public. (p. 7)

37

By comparing college athletic operations with institutional goals of maximizing profits
for higher education through competition, Burciaga explained that it is rational for the CFA
members to want to maximize their profits through athletics. He concluded his thoughts by
rejecting the NCAA’s assertion that its college sports enterprise is amateur in nature with:
Our society encourages maximization of revenue so long as the means are legal. The
Court, therefore, cannot condemn the plaintiffs’ desire to maximize revenue. NCAA’s
suggestion that profit maximization is not a worthy goal is truly disingenuous in light of
the fact that the express purpose of NCAA’s television controls is to maximize the
football revenues of member schools. (p. 7)
Next Burciaga (1982) addressed the plaintiffs and CFA members allegations that the
NCAA established their contracts in a manner that fixed prices. Burciaga (1982) stated in his
opinion that had the NCAA not controlled the contracts for the games in previous seasons, the
prices would have been completely different for the participating institutions and the networks
wouldn’t have had the same prices for different games depending on who was competing. He
summed the issue up by writing, “It is quite obvious that were it not for the NCAA controls, no
network decisionmaker would even consider offering the same price to the schools involved in
last fall’s Oklahoma-USC and Citadel-Appalachian State games” (p. 12). Burciaga also
highlighted the NCAA’s own witness, who admitted on the stand that in a free market the prices
for each game would differ depending on the competing teams. Burciaga summarized his point
on price fixing:
The evidence is clear that NCAA controlled the price to be paid to participating teams,
and made it impossible for the teams to negotiate any higher price by restricting dealings
to a single network. The evidence is also clear that some teams would have received

38

larger fees were they allowed to negotiate with any and all potential broadcasters. At the
same time, the testimony made clear that many of the smaller schools would not have
received as much as they did under the NCAA plans if they were forced to compete in a
free market. (p. 12)
The NCAA argued that by employing a dual-network contract with their television plan,
price-fixing was eliminated. However, in his written opinion, Burciaga (1982) wrote “after the
network, having the right of first choice on any given date, has made its agreement with the
teams playing the most attractive game of the week, the other schools are left in the same
position as they were under previous contracts. They will be selling in a market where there is
only one eligible buyer” (p. 12). Burciaga was adamant that price-fixing was created by having
the networks compete with each other and by limiting each team’s number of appearances. This
system allowed the NCAA total control over everything (Burciaga, 1982).
The CFA alleged that the NCAA worked to create a horizontal limit on production with
its broadcast plan. The argument laid out by the CFA was that the NCAA made agreements with
the networks for the exclusive rights to nationally televised games, restricting local broadcasts
(Burciaga, 1982). Burciaga (1982) also went on to write that, “It is clear from the evidence that
were it not for the NCAA controls, many more college football games would be televised” (p.
13). This was even true with the local broadcasts because without the NCAA controls, local
stations could broadcast other games. But, because the NCAA plan restricted that practice, it was
prohibited. The result of this practice meant that there were hardly any games broadcast on local
networks, which was the effect of the horizontal limit by the NCAA broadcast plan. Burciaga
(1982) wrote, “this horizontal agreement to limit the availability of games to potential
broadcasters is the very essence of NCAA’s agreements with the networks” (p. 13). In his

39

opinion, the evidence showed that the networks were happy to pay the higher fee for broadcast
rights because of the limitations set by the NCAA broadcast plan. The networks agreed to pay
the higher fees because they were assured there would be no head-to-head competition from
other networks due to the broadcast plan. This held true for both other national networks and the
local networks (Burciaga, 1982). Burciaga summarized his opinion on the horizontal limits by
stating, “Therefore, the Court concludes that the membership of NCAA has agreed to limit
production to a level far below that which would occur in a free market situation” (p. 13).
Burciaga next took aim at the charge that the NCAA’s broadcast plan operated as a cartel
and worked as a group boycott. Burciaga (1982) pointed out that the NCAA’s broadcast plan
worked as a cartel in two different ways. The first way was by giving exclusive rights to
broadcast games to only certain networks, which in effect prevented other broadcasters from
having the ability to broadcast games. By doing this, the NCAA basically eliminated any chance
of negotiating a contract with any other network. If an institution attempted to negotiate a
contract with a broadcaster that didn’t comply with the NCAA plan, the NCAA would threaten
sanctions and penalties toward that institution. This sort of intimidation is exactly what the
NCAA exhibited toward the CFA when it attempted to negotiate contracts, which is classic
cartel-like behavior (Burciaga, 1982). The second manner in which the NCAA’s plan worked as
a cartel was by the way in which the NCAA would penalize any institution with sanctions if it
made itself available to other broadcast interests. Expulsion from the NCAA was one of these
sanctions. Since one team cannot play a game on its own, and it is against NCAA rules to play a
non-NCAA member, no team would agree to play a team that had been expelled from the
conference. The expelled institution would then find itself without any competitors, thus creating
a systematic group boycott by the NCAA (Burciaga, 1982). Essentially, any school that did not

40

agree with the NCAA broadcast plan and attempted to contract with another broadcaster would
find itself expelled from the NCAA and ostracized by the other NCAA members.
Burciaga next analyzed the NCAA’s defense of its broadcast plan policies. The NCAA’s
principal defense was that it was trying to protect the gate attendance during live competition
(Burciaga, 1982). The judge was not convinced that television broadcasts had any effect on live
game attendance, rejecting the NCAA’s argument (p. 13). Burciaga was extremely suspect of the
NCAA’s data and the fact that it relied so heavily on the National Opinion Research Center
(N.O.R.C.) studies on the effects of televised college football games on gate attendance. The
NCAA argued that the studies showed that televised football games resulted in a decrease in live
game attendance (Burciaga, 1982). Burciaga challenged this argument because he felt the studies
were untrustworthy. Burciaga questioned the studies since they were over twenty-five years old,
conducted in 1957, and because they were controlled by the NCAA studying the controlled
market of college football. Burciaga believed the studies failed to provide proof that televised
football games were the cause of declining gate attendance because it appeared that the N.O.R.C.
studies didn’t take into consideration the rapid growth of the television industry as a whole
(Burciaga, 1982). The N.O.R.C. studies also showed that national college enrollment had
declined during the years of the study, but did not make any attempt to find a correlation between
the declining enrollments and live game gate attendance (Burciaga, 1982). Burciaga was not
persuaded by the NCAA’s argument that gate attendance is affected by televising games, calling
the NCAA’s argument “either an ill-founded belief at best, or at worst, a deception employed to
make the majority of the NCAA membership believe that they should control football television
out of self-interest” (p. 14). He summarized his findings on the NCAA’s N.O.R.C defense with:

41

In short, because of the N.O.R.C. study’s failure to account for the effect of
circumstances which logic says would negatively impact college football attendance, and
the inadequate data base upon which it relies, the reliability of the conclusions is suspect.
Yet the N.O.R.C. studies are the only empirical evidence supporting NCAA’s conclusion
that football television harms gate attendance. (p. 14)
Burciaga suggested that this system completely undermines the goals of institutions
whose athletic departments rely heavily on the revenue from their college football programs
(Burciaga, 1982).
The plaintiff’s last argument against the NCAA was that their broadcast plan was
operated as a monopoly; due to NCAA control over broadcasts it would be impossible to
determine the free market for these broadcasts. Burciaga felt that because the NCAA
commanded total control over the college football television market, he had to rely on factors
such as geographic area, the times when games can be broadcast, and the buyers and sellers of
the product of live college football broadcasts to determine the fair market value of a college
football broadcast if operating in a free market (Burciaga, 1982). Understanding that the
geographic area was dependent on who was competing in a contest, that Saturday’s are the most
suitable day on which games are played, and that the NCAA is the seller of the product while the
networks and the public are the buyers, Burciaga felt that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust
laws, exercising control over football broadcasts (Burciaga, 1982). However the NCAA argued
that the controls were adopted with no intent to violate antitrust laws. Burciaga disagreed with
that assertion:
In summary, the Court concludes that the NCAA controls over college football make
NCAA a classic cartel. This cartel has an almost absolute control over the supply of

42

college football which is made available to the networks, to television advertisers, and
ultimately to the viewing public. Like all other cartels, NCAA members have sought and
achieved a price for their product which is, in most instances, artificially high. The
NCAA cartel imposes production limits on its members, and maintains mechanisms for
punishing cartel members who seek to stray from these production quotas. The cartel has
established a uniform price for the products of each of the member producers, with no
regard for the differing quality of these products or the consumer demand for these
various products. (p.18)
With this summarization, Burciaga handed down his judgement on September 15, 1982,
ruling in favor of the plaintiffs that the NCAA did violate antitrust laws.
Court of Appeals. In 1983, the NCAA filed an appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals Tenth Circuit in an attempt to get the Circuit Court’s decision overturned. The case was
heard by Chief Judge James E. Barrett and Judges James K. Logan and Stephanie K. Seymour.
The court upheld the District Court’s decision that the NCAA broadcast plan did, in fact, violate
the Sherman Antitrust Act. Circuit Judge Logan wrote the opinion for the court with Judge
Barrett filing the dissenting opinion. Barrett’s (1983) tone was stern in his opinion, writing:
I would reverse the judgment of the district court, quash the injunction and hold that the
NCAA television regulations and contracts are valid and lawful…I am convinced that
although there is evidence to support the trial court findings, my review of the entire
evidence leads me to a firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (pp. 11-12)
Barrett (1983) felt that the findings in the case did not address the goals and ideals of the
NCAA, which are “preserving a competitive balance in intercollegiate athletics, insuring the
amateurism of college athletics and avoiding the aura of professional sports” (p. 12). Barrett felt

43

that the NCAA broadcast plan was not anti-competitive but, rather, organized in a manner that
promoted the ideals of amateurism and protected the academic virtues of the member institutions
(Barrett, 1983).
Barrett also felt that the trial court ignored the purpose and values of the NCAA and its
mission of preserving amateurism and promoting academics, relying solely on viewing college
football as a big-time business for the institutions (Barrett, 1983). Barrett concluded that the
institutions that were arguing over the NCAA broadcast plan were more concerned with utilizing
college athletics as a priority for their institutions rather than academic excellence. He also
believed that these institutions that were fighting to break free from the controls of the NCAA
broadcast plans were insisting on having the best of both aspects of the NCAA – adhering to all
other NCAA rules and regulations while also creating their own television contracts in order to
invalidate the NCAA broadcast plan and enjoy the financial gain from their own (Barrett, 1983).
Furthermore, Barrett did not find that the restraints were put in place purposefully to fix the
process but rather to make institutions adhere to the NCAA guidelines of amateurism and
academic values. He also felt that the restraints placed by the broadcast plan on the institutions
constituted an injury to the consumer, which is the viewing public. Barrett believed that the
broadcast plan, in conjunction with the amateurism goals of the NCAA, actually enhanced the
viewership of intercollegiate athletics (Barrett, 1983). He concluded his opinion with:
I agree with NCAA’s contention that, in the context of the Association’s goals and
purposes, this is no more “price fixing” than that involved in a law partnership’s division
of profits. The NCAA provisions on the division of television proceeds simply allocate
those revenues among member institutions. This distribution does not affect television
output. It does, however, foster competition among its members in keeping with its goal

44

to assure amateurism in intercollegiate athletics and to maintain the primary status of the
athlete as a student…. I would reverse the judgment of the district court. (p. 17)
In his opinion upholding the lower court’s ruling, Judge Logan wrote that the plan
suppressed product diversity, restrained output, and operated as a group boycott that exhibited
price fixing behaviors (Logan, 1983). Logan (1983) put the view of the court into perspective
when he wrote:
The price distorting restraints are broader than necessary to promote the efficiencies of
the integration. And while the ancillarity of the exclusive franchise restraints cannot be
fully assessed without a rule of reason inquiry, the plan contemplates an impermissible
integration: a combination of virtually all the producers, actual or potential, of a
differentiated product—commercially salable intercollegiate football. In these
circumstances we conclude that the television plan is one “that would always or almost
always tend to restrict competition and decrease output……. We affirm the district
court’s ruling that the television plan constitutes per se illegal price fixing. (p. 6)
In reviewing the television plan, Logan wrote that there were a few factors in considering
how the broadcast plan violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. After analyzing the characteristics of
the broadcast plan, the judges determined that there was no competition for the sale and purchase
of television rights. The court further determined that NCAA members could only sell their
broadcast rights as mandated by the NCAA broadcast plan, which was controlled by the NCAA
(Logan, 1983). Additionally, the buyers of the broadcast – the networks – had price restrictions
for individual games based on the bylaws of the broadcast plan. This resulted in no price
competition among the institutions or the networks once the contracts had been awarded, which
translated to price fixing. Furthermore, because the NCAA plan mandated that the networks

45

purchase the entire package offered, this created a limited number of buyers since not all
networks could afford the plan (Logan, 1983). In summary, Logan wrote that, “This creates a
potential for vertical foreclosure because only certain broadcasters have the resources necessary
to become buyers of NCAA football rights” (p. 7).
The next aspect of the case that court analyzed was whether the NCAA possessed market
power with its broadcast plan. The court (Logan, 1983) determined that, due to the Saturday time
slot, the demographics of college football viewership, and the price for the product, “The record
supports the trial court’s conclusion that, considering price, use, and quality, NCAA football is a
product for which there are no readily available substitutes” (p. 8). Logan (1983) continued that
the court found, based on the broadcast plan and the NCAA’s total control over broadcasting
rights, that the NCAA did have market power:
Even assuming that the market definition is too narrow, the NCAA’s total control over
televised intercollegiate football, when combined with NCAA football’s apparent
uniqueness from the perspective of broadcasters, supports the inference that the NCAA
possesses some degree of market power. Because the NCAA possesses market power the
risks of cartelization and price enhancement are imminent. Also, because there exist no
readily available substitutes for NCAA football the television plan creates substantial
vertical foreclosure. Both these results are anticompetitive. (pp. 8-9)
The court’s opinion continued, explaining the importance of the CFA’s argument against
the NCAA plan and its effects, which were felt among the member institutions. In the opinion,
Judge Logan (1983) detailed how the broadcast plan restricted NCAA members that compete in
Division I-A, of which there are less than 100, because those programs have a commercially
viable product. Of those, sixty-one of them were CFA members, which is the group that had

46

brought the suit against the NCAA (Logan, 1983). It was clear that the programs whose
competitions are viably commercial were displeased with the NCAA broadcast plan and the
prices that are being affixed to these competitions. Based on these charges by the CFA in District
Court, Logan (1983) agreed to affirm the lower court’s decision:
We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the television plan is unreasonably
restrictive of competitive conditions and therefore unlawful. It increases concentration in
the marketplace; it prevents producers from exercising independent pricing and output
decisions; it precludes broadcasters from purchasing a product for which there are no
readily available substitutes; it facilitates cartelization. Against this array of antitrust
injuries the NCAA’s justifications are insufficient. (p. 9)
Supreme Court. On March 20, 1984, the Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA was
argued in front of the Supreme Court. On June 27, 1984, a 7-2 decision was handed down,
upholding the decision of both the District Court and the court of appeals and agreeing with the
plaintiffs in the case, finding the NCAA in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In the final
decision in the case, the high court held that:
(1) although plan constituted horizontal price fixing and output limitations, it was
inappropriate to apply a per se analysis as restraints on competition were essential if the
product was to be available at all; (2) plan on its face constituted a restraint on operation
of a free market; (3) relevant market was college football; and (4) restraints were not
justified on basis of procompetitive effect, protecting live attendance or maintaining
competitive balance among amateur athletic teams. (Stevens, 1984)
In the majority opinion for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the NCAA’s
television broadcast plan operated in a manner that constituted a restraint in trade that violated

47

the Sherman Antitrust Act (Stevens, 1984). The high court ruled that the NCAA television plan
operated as a constraint on the free market and agreed with the District Court’s assertion that the
plan was governed in a way that raised prices and reduced output, both of which negatively
affect the consumer (Stevens, 1984). The court also agreed with the District Court in rejecting
the NCAA’s argument that its broadcasting plan was not anticompetitive in nature because it
lacked market power. The Supreme Court asserted that the District Court’s decision supported
that the NCAA maintained market power (Stevens, 1984).
In its defense, the NCAA had tried to argue that its plan was procompetitive, but failed to
prove that in District Court, which the Supreme Court affirmed. The NCAA tried to explain its
broadcasting plan as a joint venture in order to justify the manner in which it operated; but in the
opinion Justice Stevens wrote that the findings from the District Court refuted that argument
(Stevens, 1984). The NCAA also argued that its television plan maintained a competitive
balance among amateur athletic teams; however, the court ruled that it could not find a
correlation with that argument (Stevens, 1984). The Supreme Court reasoned that the television
plan was not organized in a manner that would assist competitive balance, as it doesn’t define
how much an institution can spend on its football programs or even the manner in which athletic
revenues are allocated. The NCAA only enforced a restriction on the stream of revenue through
its broadcasting plan, which is more beneficial to some teams than others (Stevens, 1984). The
majority opinion went on to state that there was no evidence that supported the argument that the
restriction on the revenue stream from the broadcasting plan created more equality throughout
the NCAA member institutions than would a restriction on any other means of institutional
revenue (Stevens, 1984).

48

Furthermore, the Court found that the opinion of the District Court substantially
supported a restraint of trade by the NCAA broadcasting plan, stating that, in a free market
system, many more games would be televised than the NCAA’s broadcasting plan allowed and
that the NCAA plan did not encourage a procompetitive atmosphere in college football (Stevens,
1984). The NCAA had been relying on its amateurism rule as a defense in the case to show the
courts that the television plan was set up in a manner that would help preserve amateurism within
college athletics. Justice Stevens noted the District Court’s finding that the NCAA imposed
numerous other rules to preserve amateurism and that, when applied, fared far better at
promoting competitive balance than the broadcasting plan (Stevens, 1984).
In the final paragraph of the opinion, Justice Stevens addressed the amateurism rule held
by the NCAA, writing that it, the rule on amateurism, is necessary to preserve and promoting
tradition in college athletics. Furthermore, the opinion stated that the NCAA maintains the
freedom to promote amateurism, adding that student-athletes boost engagement and diversity in
college athletics, which complies with the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, the Court also noted
that the NCAA must adhere to the rules of the Sherman Antitrust Act while preserving the
tradition of college athletics, and must not create rules that restrict output and do not promote
competitive balance. In the end, the Supreme Court supported the District Court’s decision that
by restricting consumption and not allowing member institutions of the NCAA to search for a
suitable alternative, the NCAA stunted competitive balance rather than promoted it (Stevens,
1984).
Writing the dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Byron Raymond White
disagreed with both the rulings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Justice White
wrote a strongly worded and lengthy opinion on his disagreement with the District Court’s

49

decision in favor of the plaintiffs, and also referred to the Court of Appeals’ decision. Justice
White, who was also an All-American collegiate athlete during the late 1930’s, argued that the
television broadcasting plan adopted by the NCAA was created in a style that meant to preserve
amateurism while supporting the combination of athletics and education (White, 1984). White
continued that he believed that the television broadcasting plan didn’t cause a restraint in trade
and shouldn’t have been subjected to an antitrust suit because the plan worked similarly with the
NCAA’s other anti-competitive aspects of its regulations (White, 1984).
Justice White was not convinced that the NCAA television broadcasting plan had any
anticompetitive effect on the NCAA and the member institutions utilizing the plan. Nor was he
convinced that the District Court’s ruling was based on a proper measure of output in justifying
its ruling (White, 1984). Justice White was not satisfied with the lower court’s finding that many
more college games would be televised if the NCAA hadn’t exerted total control of the television
rights of its member institutions. Justice White addressed the District Court’s finding that
eliminating the NCAA broadcast plan would reduce the amount of games televised on network
television while increasing the number of games being aired on regional and local channels.
Justice White’s contention was that the District Court made no finding on the effect of
eliminating the plan on total viewership, which he felt was the more adequate measure of output,
nor did the District Court issue an opinion on the whether the NCAA plan operated in an
anticompetitive nature (White, 1984). Essentially Justice White backed the NCAA’s argument
that the NCAA broadcast plan was set up in a way to utilize network broadcast at the expense of
local broadcast to gain more exposure for the member institutions by reaching a larger viewing
audience. Based on these factors, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court believed NCAA’s

50

broadcast plan did not have a negative effect on output and did not operate in an anticompetitive
manner (White, 1984).
With regard to the issue of amateurism, the dissenting justices believe the broadcast plan
promoted the ideal of amateurism in college football by sharing the revenues earned from the
plan amongst the member institutions. The model for the broadcast plan would, rather, decrease
financial incentives that were geared toward professionalism (White, 1984). Justice White
continued his opinion by writing that the NCAA’s plan lined up with restrictions the NCAA
mandated in other areas of its policies, and that these mandates all worked within the core of the
NCAA’s values of limiting the rewards of professionalism. Taking into account these aspects,
the dissent strongly supported the view that the NCAA’s broadcast plan promoted the concept of
amateurism, which allowed the member institutions to adhere to and focus on the educational
missions for their athletes rather than focusing on athletic achievement (White, 1984).
As a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court, the CFA was allowed to bargain with
other networks and televise more college football games (Siegfried & Burba, 2003). This
opened up the broadcasting of college athletics, which has grown to the state that it is in today.
The ruling also had some lingering effects on college athletics – positive outcomes for
institutions and the athletes that play college sports, and an adverse effect on the perception of
amateurism and the rule of it governed by the NCAA. On the positive side for the athletes and
institutions, the NCAA lost a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, damaging its
perception of having impenetrable armor. This case also created the blueprint of using the
Sherman Antitrust Act as a weapon to file charges against the NCAA, which other plaintiffs
would utilize for their own lawsuits. However, on the negative side for the athletes and
institutions, this case also solidified the amateurism rule for the NCAA, which used the language

51

from Justice Stevens and Justice White regarding the importance of amateurism in college
athletics. The NCAA has utilized both the affirming and dissenting language from this case in
successfully defending amateurism in court battles since to showcase that although the high court
ruled against it, amateurism should still be promoted and adhered to as a sacred tenet of college
athletics.
Pay for Play
In this chapter I have analyzed the Board of Regents of Oklahoma vs. NCAA case, the
financial concerns that many of its member institutions had regarding its broadcast plan, how the
NCAA was held responsible for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the effect all of this
had on the NCAA’s amateurism rule. At the onset this case was about institutions feeling that the
NCAA broadcast plan was a monopoly that restricted them from financial gain for the product
they put on the field. By the end of the case, deeper questions emerged surrounding college
athletics and athletes as purely amateur based on the amount of revenue realized through
television contracts. Since the end of the trial the amount of revenue had increased due to
institutions having the ability to negotiate contracts, sparking the pay for play debate. As the
revenue increased so did the debate on whether college athletes should be considered amateur
and whether they should be paid; thus bringing into focus the current debate on pay for play and
the outcry of many that believe college athletes should be paid.
The pay for play v. amateurism argument can be tied directly back to the Board of
Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA. This case set the precedent on amateurism that the NCAA has
maintained for years as its standing argument against a system of pay for play. Both Judge
Barrett in the appeals case and Justice White of the Supreme Court held strong opinions on the
value and sanctity of amateurism being an important asset in college athletics. The NCAA has

52

reverted back to this case on numerous occasions to point out how the courts have espoused
amateurism while downplaying the idea of professionalism in college athletics; the NCAA has
been stout in using these judgements as a basis for shooting down pay for play.
Although Justices White and Barrett, as dissenters for the Supreme Court in this case,
voiced strong wording in their beliefs for amateurism having a firm presence in realm of college
athletics, the plaintiffs were still successful in proving their case. And although the Board of
Regents of Oklahoma vs. NCAA wasn’t about paying college athletes for their performances on
the field it was successful in showing that the NCAA could be held responsible for antitrust
violations, laying the groundwork for future lawsuits. This case was also pivotal in bringing to
the forefront the financial concerns many institutions had around the amount of revenue the
NCAA was generating through its contracts.

53

Chapter Four: History of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and College
Athlete Scholarship Issues
The next case that I am analyzing for this study is White v. NCAA. This case was
important because it drew attention to the fact that full student-athlete scholarships did not cover
a student-athletes entire cost of attendance. This case is also important because it never went to
trial. Instead the NCAA settled the lawsuit with the class essentially admitting that its policy on
full athletic scholarships needed to change. Ultimately, a few years after the suit, the NCAA did
adopt a policy to allow a full athletic scholarship to cover a student-athletes full cost of
attendance.
White v. NCAA
In February 2006, former Stanford University football player Jason White filed a lawsuit
against the NCAA, alleging that the NCAA Grant-in-Aid (GIA), or full scholarship, imposed a
cap limiting the amount of scholarship a student-athlete could receive to below what an
institution sets as its cost of attendance (COA) (White v. NCAA, 2008). The complaint was based
on the fact that a university sets its COA at a higher amount than what a full GIA will cover.
Every institution includes the components of tuition & fees, room & board, books, and personal
& miscellaneous costs when configuring their COA’s. A full GIA scholarship would only cover
the components of tuition & fees, room & board, and books, leaving the personal &
miscellaneous costs out of that calculation. Jason White and his attorneys filed their complaint
based on that shortage.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold the NCAA responsible for the gap between the
GIA and the COA and to stop the NCAA from enforcing its GIA policy, which would allow for
student-athletes to receive their athletic scholarship up to the COA (Baker III, Maxcy& Thomas,

54

2011). In addition to holding the NCAA responsible for the GIA to COA gap, the plaintiffs were
also pursuing monetary damages on behalf of the class they represented. On August 29, Jason
White and his attorneys had filed a motion to have the case certified as a class action lawsuit and
to be appointed as the representatives of the class (White v. NCAA). The motion was officially
filed on September 8, 2006, with the class being made up of Division I student-athletes. The
NCAA filed a motion to have the class action dismissed. On October 19, the court certified the
lawsuit as a Class action (White v. NCAA). The certification defined the class as:
the individuals who received athletic-based GIAs from colleges and universities that
sponsor (i) football programs included in NCAA Division I-A; or (ii) men’s basketball
programs sponsored by colleges or universities in the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12,
Pac-10, SEC, Mountain West, WAC, Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Mid-American, Sun
Belt, West Coast, Horizon League, Colonial Athletic Association, or Missouri Valley
Conferences, at any time between February 17, 2002 and the entry of judgment in this
matter. (White v. NCAA, 2008, p. 2)
Other Division I athletes who joined Jason White as named Plaintiffs for the class were
Brian Polak, a former Football player for the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA);
Chris Craig, a former basketball player from the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP); and
Jovan Harris, a former basketball player at the University of San Francisco (Zapata, 2008).
Progress of the Lawsuit
In April of 2006, the NCAA filed a motion to have the case dismissed. At that point the
plaintiffs filed a memorandum opposing the dismissal. However, in June of 2006, the court
agreed with the NCAA and the motion to dismiss, although the dismissal left room to amend for
the plaintiffs (White v. NCAA). At the end of June, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended

55

Complaint (FAC) and in July the NCAA moved to dismiss. Once the again the plaintiffs filed a
memorandum supporting their opposition to the dismissal, and on September 20th, the court
agreed with the plaintiffs, issuing an order denying the NCAA’s motion (White v. NCAA).
Earlier in September the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on
behalf of anyone who received a full GIA
from any of the (1) football programs sponsored by colleges and universities included in
NCAA Division I-A or (2) men’s basketball programs sponsored by colleges or
universities in the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, Mountain West, West
Coast, Horizon League, Colonial Athletic Association, or Missouri Valley conferences, at
any time between February 17, 2002 and the date of judgment in this matter. (White v.
NCAA, 2008, p. 1-2)
The SAC alleged that the NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by capping the
amount of athletics aid that a student-athlete could receive at the full GIA level. It also alleged
that if the NCAA hadn’t capped the GIA, student-athletes would be able to receive athletic aid
up to the full COA, based on their institution (White v. NCAA, 2008). As normal procedure for
the case, the Class Counsel investigated thoroughly the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the
SAC and the NCAA’s defense. During the investigation the Class Counsel subpoenaed the
NCAA and other related parties for documents related to the case. Also during the discovery
phase the Class Counsel took 18 depositions and conducted interviews to gain pertinent
information related to the case (White v. NCAA).
The result of the investigation came in the form of several negotiations between the Class
Counsel and the NCAA. The court documents (White v. NCAA) show that, “The process
included several in-person mediation sessions supervised by the Hon. Daniel Weinstein, Judge of

56

the Superior Court (Ret.), and numerous telephonic and email exchanges” (p. 2). And after all
the negotiations were completed the court (White v. NCAA) shows that “Plaintiff’s and Class
Counsel believe that the investigation described above provides an adequate and satisfactory
basis for the Settlement described herein” (p. 2).
White, the other plaintiffs, and their counsel understood the time and expense that a trial
would incur when pressing action against the NCAA. They also acknowledged that not only
would the trial be extensive and financially burdensome, but that the NCAA would likely also
appeal a decision against them, further extending the case (White v. NCAA). The plaintiffs had
considered that the outcome of the case was not certain and there was risk in pressing such action
against the NCAA, which carried no guarantees. That along with the difficulties of proof in a
federal antitrust case and the problems that could arise with the possible defenses they would
face, the plaintiffs understood that there would be no assurances for the outcome of the trial
(White v. NCAA). Based upon the investigations and their evaluations, the plaintiffs and their
counsel decided the best course of action was to settle the case based on stipulations that they felt
were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class (White v. NCAA).
The Settlement
Due to the settlement, the NCAA was afforded the ability to issue a denial of
wrongdoing, which allowed them to deny the charges claimed by the plaintiffs. The settlement
gave the NCAA the chance to continued its denials that it had committed any violation of law or
taken part in antitrust violations; the NCAA contended that it had, at all times, acted in a lawful
manner. The NCAA also made it known it had agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense of a
long, time-consuming lawsuit and the distraction of litigation that would keep it from its normal

57

business (White v. NCAA). The NCAA’s denial was summarized by the court (White v. NCAA)
with:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, CONSENTED TO AND
AGREED, by Plaintiff’s, for themselves and on behalf of the Class, and by the NCAA
that, subject to the approval of the Court, the Action shall be settled, compromised and
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice and that the Released Claims shall be fully
and finally compromised, settled and released as to the Released Persons, in the manner
and upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. (p. 3)
The agreement included several provisions that defined who would qualify for the
settlement. The “Class” for this settlement (White v. NCAA) was:
all persons who received athletic-based GIAs from any of the (1) football programs
sponsored by colleges and universities included in NCAA Division I-A; or (2) men’s
basketball programs sponsored by colleges and universities in the ACC, Big East, Big 10,
Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, Mountain West, WAC, Atlantic 10, Conference USA, MidAmerican, Sun Belt, West Coast, Horizon League, Colonial Athletic Association, or
Missouri Valley Conferences, at any time between February 17, 2002 and the entry of
Judgment in the Action, which period shall include the entire academic year 2007-2008.
(p. 3)
These definitions shed light on who was able to apply for the settlement and from what
time period. It also outlined the stipulations behind the settlement; it also contained several
considerations that the NCAA agreed to provide for the members of the class.
First, the NCAA agreed to make a total of $218 million available to all Division I
member institutions for the academic years 2007-2008 through 2012-2013 to use as a benefit for

58

student-athletes and to pay student-athletes from the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund (SAOF),
a fund designed to assist student-athletes with educational expenses not covered by their athletic
scholarships, and making sure the institutions adhere to the policies set forth for SAOF (White v.
NCAA). The NCAA also reserved the right to use the funds currently utilized for the Special
Assistance Fund (SAF) and the Academic Enhancement Fund (AEF) for this purpose (White v.
NCAA). The NCAA strongly urged the member institutions to utilize the funds provided by the
settlement for student-athletes that demonstrate financial or academic needs, while following the
NCAA guidelines for reporting the usage of the funds back to the NCAA via internal reports. Per
the NCAA, this article of the settlement would not impact the Academic Performance Program
(APP), a program designed to assist student-athletes academically, which would still be
administered by the NCAA to the Division I institutions to use for their student-athletes with
certain academic needs (White v. NCAA).
Second, the NCAA made a total of $10 million available over a three-year timeframe to
student-athletes who qualified as class members who made claims on the settlement. The claims
were reimbursed to the class members who could prove they were for educational expenses, such
as tuition and fees, books and supplies, career development, and other class-related expenses
incurred by the student-athlete (White v. NCAA). The stipulations surrounding the payments were
that the payment would be a one-time payment of up to $500 from the NCAA to cover career
development services, such as from career counseling, resume preparation, and/or job placement
(White v. NCAA). Another stipulation was that the NCAA would cover up to $2,500 per year for
a maximum of three years to reimburse class members who could prove educational expenses
from a program at an accredited institution that led to a two- or four-year degree or for an
accredited professional graduate, post-graduate degree, or a professional certificate.

59

The settlement also stipulated that if, at the end of the three-year timeframe, any amount
of the $10 million that had not been utilized would be redistributed by the NCAA over three
subsequent years to the Division I institutions that have the same goals for academic programs
that were listed in the first consideration (White v. NCAA). The NCAA also agreed not to utilize
any of the funds for its degree completion program or its graduate scholarship program. The
NCAA also agreed to create and maintain a website over the three-year period that would be
available to the class members so they could apply for the settlement, review the benefits, and
submit the proper documentation needed to be included in the class (White v. NCAA). The
NCAA imposed a deadline of six months prior to the end of the three year timeframe by which
student-athletes would have to apply? if they wanted to be considered for the class and the
benefits (White v. NCAA).
Third, the NCAA made accommodations by creating legislation in which the Division I
member institutions could provide accident insurance coverage for student-athletes who may be
injured while participating in athletics (White v. NCAA). Fourth, the Board of Directors for the
NCAA Division I institutions approved a rule by which institutions could provide year-round
health insurance to their student-athletes (White v. NCAA). The fifth and final stipulation was for
the NCAA to explore the possibility for institutions to allow aid through graduation for studentathletes who were no longer eligible for athletics scholarships. They also began to explore the
possibility for institutions to provide multi-year scholarships to student-athletes (White v.
NCAA). At the time, multi-year scholarships were not an option, so all student-athletes were
signed to one year scholarships that left the option open for non-renewal in the subsequent years.
In the notice of settlement, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were responsible for alerting
any Class Members of the settlement. As an added section to the settlement, the court also ruled

60

that the NCAA would pay up to a maximum of $100,000 to the Class Counsel for expenses
incurred while making the class members aware of the settlement, once proper documentation
was provided to prove actual costs for administering the notice of the settlement (White v.
NCAA). The Plaintiffs were also required to provide the NCAA with proper identity information
for the members of the class who had been sent notification of the settlement so that the NCAA
could properly track which of the class members took action and which opted out (White v.
NCAA). Finally, the NCAA was granted the ability to terminate the settlement if more than three
percent of the Class decided to opt out of the settlement (White v. NCAA).
In the settlement, the NCAA agreed to pay the Class Counsel’s fees of $7.5 million and
to reimburse Counsel’s $1.1 million in fees (White v. NCAA). The plaintiffs were also allowed to
apply for incentive payments of $5,000 each for being named in the case and also for any
student-athletes that gave testimony in a deposition (White v. NCAA). The NCAA agreed not to
oppose these judgements and
to pay the amounts awarded by the Court in response to them in addition to the
Settlement Consideration described above. Thirty days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order the NCAA will deposit into an interest bearing account the sum of $8.6
million to be disbursed in accordance with the Court’s order on the application of Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Any portion of the sum so
deposited which is not awarded to Class Counsel shall be returned to the NCAA. (White
v. NCAA, 2008, p. 8)
This agreement was settled upon between the plaintiffs, the NCAA and the court at
Fairness Hearing to assure that all parties involved agreed to the terms (White v. NCAA).

61

The settlement in White v. NCAA helped make the case that the full scholarship
institutions offered based on NCAA rules and regulations was not enough to cover what the
institutions had set as the cost of attendance. Had both sides not reached the settlement and the
case went to trial, Baker III, Maxcy, & Thomas (2011) believe that the NCAA would have lost
control over the purpose of their GIA program. The settlement afforded the NCAA the ability to
maintain its policies surrounding the GIA program, allowing changes to the program to be made
by the NCAA. With the settlement, the plaintiffs were able to force the NCAA to accept and
admit that a full scholarship did not meet the cost of attendance and, therefore, needed to be
addressed. It also gave student-athletes that were a part of the class the ability to be reimbursed
for funds used previously to purchase items that were part of what their institution had
previously determined a normal cost of attendance.
Since the NCAA avoided a trial, it was able to once again avoid a challenge to its
longstanding amateurism rule through antitrust action. The NCAA was able to continue the
status quo as it pertained to student-athletes. As Baker III, Maxcy & Thomas (2011) point out,
with this case “The NCAA has retained complete control over major college football and major
college basketball in regard to the regulation of student-athletes” (p. 95). With this settlement,
and rulings in previous cases, the courts allowed the NCAA to maintain its regulations
preserving amateurism in college athletics, which makes it distinct from professional sports
(Baker III, Maxcy, & Thomas, 2011). In their review of the case, Baker III, Maxcy, & Thomas
(2011) advise that the NCAA should update its policies based on the facts that came out of the
White v. NCAA case; doing so would strengthen the NCAA’s vulnerability from antitrust
lawsuits in the future. They concluded their review with an assessment on the future of antitrust
lawsuits and challenges to the NCAA policy on amateurism:

62

By modifying grant-in-aid to include the full cost of attendance, the NCAA will further
fortify its regulations from antitrust scrutiny. If grant-in-aid included the full cost of
attendance, the NCAA would have an educationally-related reason for the amount set for
athletics-based aid. It would be extremely difficult for future classes of plaintiffs to
challenge that amount without having to convince the court to reject decades of
precedent, including Board of Regents, recognizing the preservation of amateurism as a
justification for NCAA regulations. If plaintiffs were to win that legal battle, they would
arguably be party to the greatest upset in the history of college sports. (p. 96).
Ultimately the NCAA did change its policy on the GIA to COA gap, which allowed
institutions to offer full scholarships up to the COA. However, the NCAA continues to face
challenges to its rules and regulations, including questions surrounding its amateurism rule.
White v. NCAA was the vehicle that brought the issue of the GIA to COA gap to light, and in so
doing, helped to pressure the NCAA to make the change to its policy.
NCAA March Madness Basketball History and Contracts
The NCAA men’s basketball tournament puts the financial aspect of the White case into
context because it lends an understanding as to why the athletes sued the NCAA and the reasons
there is such an outcry of a pay for play system in college athletics allowing student-athletes to
get paid for their performances in the arena and on the field.
Held every March, and carrying the nickname March Madness, the NCAA’s Division I
men’s basketball tournament is the largest intercollegiate athletics event in the United States. The
event is the pinnacle of men’s college basketball, with the winner of the tournament anointed as
the National Champion of men’s college basketball for the year. The television ratings for the
games during March Madness each year are high and the advertising revenue generated during

63

the event often surpasses that of the Super Bowl and the World Series (Southall, Nagel, Amis &
C. Southall, 2008). It is one of the two most prestigious college sports championships that an
institution’s athletic department can achieve (the other being the National Champion of college
football). With the massive popularity of the sport and the desire by institutions to achieve the
highest honor of becoming the National Champion, it is no surprise that the NCAA would
capitalize financially on the popularity that surrounds its tournament.
In 1999, the NCAA signed a $6 billion contract with CBS to televise the men’s basketball
tournament. CBS had the exclusive rights for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament since
1982; the new contract signed in 1999 carried the network through 2014 (CNNMoney.com,
1999). The 11-year contract, which at the time was one of the largest sports contracts in United
States history, expanded on its current contract that would have expired in 2002
(CNNMoney.com, 1999). CBS was able to outbid all the other major networks to win the
contract with the NCAA, which would pay at around $545 million per year (CNNMoney.com,
1999).
The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament began in 1939 with eight teams with the
championship game being played in Evanston Illinois (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). It
culminated with the University of Oregon defeating Ohio State University to become the first
champion. Since its inaugural tournament in 1939, the tournament has expanded in size and
grown so much in popularity that by 2005, it was the second-most popular athletic event for
gamblers behind the Super Bowl (History.com). Although the tournament started out with only
eight teams participating, it grew steadily – to 40 teams in 1979 and 48 in 1980 – until 1985,
when it reached 64 invitees. In 2011, the tournament hit its current team invitee list with 68
teams (NCAA.com, 2016). The teams that are selected for the tournament are based on two

64

separate criteria – automatic qualifiers and at-large qualifiers. The automatic qualifiers win their
way into the tournament by winning their respective conference, while the at-large qualifiers are
selected by a committee through a process based on their performance throughout the season, an
addition that took place in 1975 (NCAA.com, 2016).
The championship game wasn’t televised until 1946, when it was shown locally in New
York City with an estimated 500,000 viewers. Regional broadcasts first took place in 1952, and
the first national telecast of the championship came occurred in 1954 from Kansas City
(sportsbusniessdaily.com, 2013). As the tournament grew, so did the media coverage, adding to
the popularity of the sport. In 1957, the media coverage of the tournament expanded to its largest
coverage since its inception – over 60 newspapers, radio broadcast on over 70 stations that
spanned 11 states, and an 11-station television network (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
In 1963, the NCAA signed a contract with “Sports Network” for the rights to televise the
championship game nationally for a five-year period ending in 1968 at a total cost of $140,000.
By 1966, the net income from the entire tournament exceeded half a million dollars since the
tournaments existence, prompting adoption of a television blackout policy that required a 48hour advance sellout in order to broadcast games (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). The
tournament’s total net income exceeded the million dollar mark for the first time in 1969 and the
television income, with NBC being selected to carry the tournament, exceeded the half a million
dollar mark, showing the exponential growth of the tournament. By 1971, the popularity of the
tournament grew, as NBC recorded the largest television viewership of a basketball telecast with
over nine million households tuning into the championship game (sportsbusinessdaily.com,
2013). Just four years after setting record numbers in television revenues, the 1973 tournament
television rights exceeded the million dollar mark for the first time. During that same

65

tournament, NBC televised the championship game in prime time, earning a television rating of
20.5, with 13.6 million television households viewing the championship game, reaching an
audience of 39 million people (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
The phrase “Final Four” was first introduced in 1975 to indicate the four teams that
advanced to the semi-final round as the final teams of the tournament. Reporter Ed Chay of the
Cleveland Plain Dealer is credited with coining the phrase; in 1981, the NCAA registered the
term “Final Four” as a trademark (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In 1979, NBC set a onegame record with a 24.1 share as Michigan State University defeated Indiana State University to
earn the title (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
CBS again earned the broadcast rights to the tournament in 1982, agreeing to a three-year
television contract, which allowed CBS to televise the tournaments through the 1984 season.
That year also marked the first year that the tournament “Selection Show” – the unveiling of the
teams that have been selected to play in the tournament – was broadcast on live television
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In 1983, the National Championship game between North
Carolina State and Houston University set a record for a CBS broadcast, reaching 18.6 million
households and holding a television rating of 22.3. The growing popularity of the tournament
and the growing attendance prompted the NCAA to require that the venue that hosts the Final
Four has a seating minimum of 17,000 (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
CBS hit another viewership record in 1984, with 19.8 million homes viewing the
championship game. In 1985, CBS and the NCAA extended their contract for three more years,
allowing CBS to carry the tournament through 1987. The NCAA also found listening success
with its radio network that drew 21 million listeners for the championship game
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). The 1988 tournament saw another three-year contract extension

66

between the NCAA and CBS; it also marked the first year that all regional games were broadcast
in prime time (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In 1989, the NCAA increased the requirement
for seating capacity in host facilities up to 30,000 for the Final Four to meet the demands and the
popularity of the event (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). CBS once again renewed its television
contract with the NCAA in 1991, this time for seven years to the tune of $1 billion dollars. CBS
also agreed to broadcast live coverage of all sessions of the championship in that contract
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). A sitting president of the United States attended the tournament
for the first time in 1994, when then-President Bill Clinton attended one of the regional
championships and the national semifinal (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In 1995, two years
before their contract was to expire, the NCAA and CBS renewed the television contract once
again. This time the contract is worth $1.725 billion for five years, extending until 2002
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
The digital age came to the basketball tournament when, in 1996, the NCAA created the
first online page dedicated to the Final Four. Its web presence expanded the following year when
the NCAA included the preliminary tournament rounds on its webpage (sportsbusinessdaily.com,
2013). In 1999, the NCAA and CBS once again renewed their contract, three years before it
expired; this time they strove for an unprecedented number, settling on an 11-year, $6 billion
dollar agreement. The agreement, which included television rights, over-the-air, cable, satellite,
digital and home video, also encapsulated marketing, promotions, internet sources, radio, fan
festivals, and licensing (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
In 2000, the phrase “March Madness” was coined when the NCAA, in conjunction with
the Illinois High School Athletic Association, formed the “March Madness Athletic Association”
and applied for a trademark for the “March Madness” phrase (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In

67

2002, the Entire Sports Programming Network (ESPN) televised the opening round game of the
tournament for the first time (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). Westwood One, America’s largest
radio network with over 150 programs, took over administration of the tournaments radio rights
in 2003. In the same year, the NCAA once again increased its capacity requirement for Final
Four host venues from 30,000 up to 40,000 (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
In 2005, CBS entered a two-year agreement with CollegeSports.com (CSTV.com) for
internet streaming video rights for out-of-market games for the first 58 games of the tournament.
Originally this was set up as a subscription model for internet viewership of the games, but
changed to a free product in 2006 (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). In 2007, CBS doubled its
bandwidth to accommodate the high volume of traffic it received from online viewership of the
tournament. Dubbed “March Madness on Demand,” the internet service offers free live video
streaming online for the games in the first three rounds of the tournament
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). Ancillary events surrounding the Final Four increased
tremendously in 2008 in the host city, making the Final Four an entertainment destination, not
just a few basketball games. Such events as Hoop City, the Big Dance, and other festivities draw
large crowds to the city above and beyond attending the playoff games (sportsbusniessdaily.com,
2013). In response to this growing trend and the extensive migration of fans to the host city, the
NCAA put more effort into planning events around the Final Four, turning the event into a fourday celebration. Also in 2008, to accommodate ever increasing online viewership of the games,
CBSSports.com and March Madness on Demand developed an online platform that granted over
200 separate websites to broadcast live games to internet viewers of the tournament. For the first
time, viewers were able to watch all 63 games online; CBS saw its online viewership jump from
almost two million to over four million (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). The digital age had

68

officially become a part of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, giving the fans and viewers
the ability to basically watch the games anywhere.
By 2009, the tournament was drawing record numbers of fans attending both the
tournament and the events that surrounded the Final Four weekend. Over 72,000 fans attended
both the national semifinals games and the national championship game that were held in Ford
Field in Detroit. Records were also established for the events of Hoop City and the Big Dance,
with over 300,000 fans in attendance over the three-day period (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
In 2010, the NCAA, utilizing a clause in its 1999 contract with CBS, opted out of the contract to
sign a new deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting. The contract was a 14-year deal
worth $10.8 billion (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). The extensive contract also stipulated that
CBS and Turner Broadcasting collaborate with the NCAA and its marketing program. For the
first time in the history of the tournament every single game was televised live across the country
on several networks (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). The ancillary events that surround the
Final Four were also revamped to accommodate more fans. Hoop City was rebranded as Bracket
Town, featuring many temporary basketball courts with events for fans to participate in games
and be more involved in the celebration (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). Over 140,000 fans
attended the games of the Final Four weekend that year. Although the attendance for the games
was high, it still did not reach the levels set during the Final Four games the previous year
(sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
A tournament record for fans was set on the semifinal on Saturday, 2011, as over 75,000
fans attended the games. Over 70,000 fans attended the national championship game, bringing
the total fans at the Final Four games to over 145,000 (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013). Also in
2011, March Madness on Demand was offered free to other platforms, such as iPad and iPhone,

69

and was available free through NCAA.com. Even though all of the games of the tournament are
available live on television, the total visits to online platforms, including mobile use, increased
by over 60 percent; over 13 million hours of streaming video were expended through broadband,
and iPad and iPhone usage (sportsbusinessdaily.com, 2013).
The NCAA men’s basketball tournament, as I have detailed in the history of the
tournament, has grown exponentially since its inception in 1939. In recent years, especially since
1999 and as detailed in the history, the tournament has grown massively in popularity,
viewership and, most noticeably, financial benefits including revenues. As mentioned earlier, the
contract between the NCAA and CBS in 1999 was the largest in sports history at the time in the
United States. However, the NCAA continued to re-negotiate that contract, signing an even
larger one in 2011. The 2011 contract was signed with both CBS and Turner Broadcasting and
was built around a 14-year agreement, assuring that the tournament would continue to be carried
through television and digital media into the 2020’s.
The 2011 television contract also encompassed internet and wireless rights for CBS and
Turner Broadcasting and continued through the 2024 men’s basketball tournament. By
announcing the contract through an NCAA press release (2010), the NCAA believed that it
would help to strengthen the long term financial stability of the organization (ncaa.com). In that
release the NCAA stated that 96% of the revenue generated from the contract would be used to
benefit student-athletes through a multitude of programs already established within the NCAA
structure, and to assist with services or direct contributions to member conferences or individual
institutions (ncaa.com, 2010). The NCAA stated that the agreement would also provide support
to all of the NCAA divisions, giving them the opportunity to play in a wide range of

70

championships and providing them the means for funding personal and educational costs
attributed to their academic pursuits (ncaa.com, 2010).
With the new contract, the NCAA formed a committee that would review allocation of
the funds that were generated from the tournament to assure that the funding moving forward
would still be utilized in a manner that benefits the individual institutions and the student-athletes
(ncaa.com, 2010). Using the new contract as the backdrop for organizing the reform committee
allowed the NCAA to also explore academic review for student-athletes as it relates to their
educational endeavors. The committee was charged with investigating options to find a balance
for student-athletes between their basketball championship performances and academic
achievement through their progress rate or graduation rate (ncaa.com, 2010). Jim Isch, who was
the NCAA interim president at the time, stated:
The economic challenges of the day are being felt on campuses across the country. The
amount of revenue from this agreement isn’t the focus of this moment, rather it is the
long-term security it provides as well as what is done with the money. We put our money
where our mission is…supporting student-athletes so they can be successful in the
classroom and in life. (ncaa.com, 2010, p. 1)
In April of 2016, the NCAA, CBS, and Turner Broadcasting announced that they were
once again extending their broadcasting contract. The extension would lock up the NCAA, CBS,
and Turner for eight years longer than the current contract that was set to expire in 2024,
carrying it through 2032 (espn.com, 2016). The financial arrangements of the deal were set to
pay around $1.1 billion per season, an increase from around $770 million per season in the
previous contract. The contract had the same provisions that the previous contract had regarding

71

television and online platforms, but also included a provision for technologies that hadn’t yet
been invented (espn.com, 2016).
The link that connects the White v. NCAA case to the NCAA Men’s Basketball
Tournament is the amount of revenue generated by the tournament, and student-athletes claims
that they should be compensated for their participation while representing their institution
through their sport. The NCAA amateurism rule doesn’t allow a pay-for-play structure in college
athletics. This is partially the reason behind the lawsuit, the student-athletes do not feel that they
are being treated fairly by the rules the NCAA sets for them. The argument that the studentathletes have is that they NCAA has the ability to negotiate contracts worth billions of dollars to
the organization while the student-athletes are not allowed to negotiate the amount of their
scholarship. In the mind of the student-athletes, and many others, that system is unfairly biased
toward the NCAA and flawed in that manner.
Pay for Play Ramifications
In April of 2014, just before and just after he led his team, the University of Connecticut,
to the National Championship, Shabazz Napier drew attention to himself not only for his
performance on the court, but also for comments he made about being a student-athlete. As
CBS.com (2014) reported, Napier was quoted as saying:
We as student athletes get utilized for what we do so well, and we’re definitely best to get
a scholarship to our universities. But at the end of the day, that doesn’t cover everything.
We do have hungry nights that we don’t have enough money to get food in. Sometimes
money is needed. I don’t think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of
dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don’t know how to handle themselves
with money. (CBS.com, 2014, pg. 1)

72

Napier wasn’t the first student-athlete to bring attention to the financial questions that
have arisen in an era when college athletes are sometimes viewed as professionals, while the
NCAA makes billion dollar deals for broadcast rights. In an era of college sports in which a large
segment of the media and fan base feel that college athletics should adopt a pay-for-play format,
Napier’s comment and the NCAA television deal came under heavy scrutiny.
The NCAA stated that 96% of the money made in the deal with CBS and Turner
Broadcasting for the March Madness tournament would go back to the student-athletes and
institutions in the form of programs and services (ncaa.com, 2010). However, Rodger Sherman
questions the numbers and the reporting that the NCAA utilizes in coming up with that figure,
stating that it does not equal 96%, but is closer to 90%. Sherman (2016) also states that the
NCAA claims all the money is used to benefit the student-athletes, by which one could infer that
every single dollar goes toward the betterment of the student-athlete; Sherman asserts this is not
true. When breaking down the NCAA claim, Sherman (2016) says the numbers just don’t add
up:
But when you break down that phrasing, it doesn't really check out. For starters, they're
arguing all money that's part of "direct distribution to member conferences and schools"
is included in that "90 percent." Between grants based on the amount of sports schools
offer, grants based on the amounts of scholarships schools offer, conference grants
and "the basketball fund" distributed to schools based on tournament performances, over
60 percent of the money the NCAA makes from the tournament goes directly to schools
and conferences. (p. 1)
Sherman (2016) goes on to question how the NCAA can be certain that the money it
sends to conferences and institutions is going directly into funding for the student-athlete:

73

College sports programs spend billions on buildings, millions on coach contracts
and hundreds of thousands of dollars on search firms that choose which coaches to spend
millions of dollars on. They also tend to be phenomenally inefficient users of money. The
NCAA is arguing that every penny spent by schools helps student athletes. How can
money paid to a coach or search firm benefit student athletes? (p. 1)
However, Sherman doesn’t end there. He also raises questions about the grants that the
NCAA gives to the conferences that have institutions represented in the March Madness
tournament. Sherman (2016) states that the money sent to the conferences is earmarked for
compliance-related issues, officiating programs, enforcement, and other programs that occur at
the conference level. That money from the NCAA does not go directly to benefit the studentathlete, yet the NCAA reports it that way.
The questions that Sherman raised aren’t new yet remain valid, considering the amount of
money that the NCAA makes on contracts like those detailed previously related to the men’s
basketball tournament and the outcry that has continued for years that college athletes should be
paid for their services. Sherman (2016) then brings up the point that even if the NCAA is sending
90% of its proceeds from the media deals related to the men’s basketball tournament to the
institutions to benefit the student-athlete, what about the other 10% that doesn’t go to the
student-athletes that the NCAA says does (which is equal to around $1 billion)? (Sherman,
2016). Sherman (2016) summarizes his thoughts by stating:
The NCAA's best argument for why it gets to make $1 billion every year to put on a
basketball tournament starring unpaid basketball players is that it only keeps $100 million
for itself. It's bad enough for the NCAA to hold a billion-dollar event without paying the

74

people that make it happen. It's even worse when they try to make it seem like they're
generous for doing it. (p. 1)
Sherman may speak strongly about his views on the NCAA and the amount of money
that it makes from the March Madness contract, but the points he raises are questioned by many
people about college athletics, especially when it is brought to the forefront by someone like
Shabazz Napier, who utilized the big stage of the March Madness tournament to bring attention
to the disparity of the finances surrounding college athletics.

75

Chapter Five: Names, Images, Likenesses, and Paying College Athletes
The next case I am analyzing is O’Bannon v. NCAA. This case is important because of
the mainstream media press it received and the popularity of the main plaintiff in the case, Ed
O’Bannon. It is also important because not only was the NCAA named in the lawsuit, but the EA
video game corporation was a co-defendant in the case. Ultimately this case exposed the inner
workings of the NCAA, exposing some credibility issues within the organization and opening it
up to more criticism from a public that was already weary of the organizational processes.
Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA
On July 21, 2009, Ed O’Bannon, a former college basketball player, sued the NCAA and
Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company (EA Sports) over their use of former studentathletes’ images in video games, DVDs, photographs, and other media without the consent of the
former athletes (Solomon, 2014). The case, which came to be known as O’Bannon vs. NCAA,
took center stage in the pay for play vs. amateurism debate and ultimately put the spotlight on
O’Bannon as the face of pay for play in college athletics. The case has taken many twists and
turns, including a judgement for the plaintiffs in August of 2014 and an appeal that led to that
judgement being overturned in September, 2015. In March of 2016, lawyers for the plaintiffs
petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the antitrust case, and in May the NCAA petitioned the
Supreme Court as well. In October of 2016 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. (New,
2016).
Background on Ed O’Bannon. In the world of college basketball, Ed O’Bannon was a
prolific player and a national champion. As a senior at the University of California Los Angeles
(UCLA), wearing number 31, Ed O’Bannon helped lead the Bruins to the 1995 NCAA men’s
basketball national title. Playing power forward for the Bruins, O’Bannon was named the NCAA

76

tournament’s Most Outstanding Player and was also awarded the John R. Wooden award for the
college basketball player of the year. He was named a first team All-American, the co-player of
the year in the Pacific Coast Conference (PAC-10), placed on the All-Pac-10 team, among many
other accolades. In 1996, a year after he helped UCLA claim the National Title, his number 31
was retired by the university. He was also inducted into the UCLA Athletics Hall of Fame in
2005, and the Pac-12 (formerly the Pac-10) Hall of Honor in 2012. As a student-athlete at
UCLA, O’Bannon’s tuition, fees, room, and board were paid for through his athletic scholarship;
however, he was not allowed to earn any income from basketball beyond his athletic scholarship
due to the student-athlete amateurism rule set forth by the NCAA. He was not permitted to sell
autographed items or earn royalty fees by licensing his name or likeness to products.
After his college career ended in 1995, O’Bannon was drafted into the National
Basketball Association, a professional league in the United States. Leaving college and joining
the professional ranks meant that O’Bannon’s status as an athlete went from amateur to
professional and he could start earning money as a basketball player. However, O’Bannon’s stint
in the NBA was a short one and he left to seek professional opportunities in Europe after only
two years, playing professionally in Europe for seven seasons for teams in Italy, Greece, Spain,
Argentina, and Poland. He eventually returned to the United States and played for the Los
Angeles Stars in the American Basketball Association (ABA) for one year. At the age of 32,
O’Bannon retired from basketball.
Background on O’Bannon vs. NCAA. In 2009, Sonny Vaccaro, a broker who helped
organize sponsorships deals between schools and shoe companies, recruited O’Bannon, who was
working as a car salesman at a Toyota dealership outside Las Vegas, to be the lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit that would come to be known as O’Bannon vs NCAA. Former shoe marketer Vaccaro

77

was vital, in the late 1980s and 1990s, in forming the summer youth basketball scene (Solomon,
2014). Vaccaro had become synonymous with summer basketball for young kids and had always
thought the NCAA was corrupt; he was finally convinced in 2008 when the NCAA helped form
the summer ihoops program (Solomon, 2014). Vaccaro had been upset with the NCAA because
it had impeded on his summer youth hoops programs with the announcement of a partnership
with the NBA to form the summer ihoops youth program (Solomon, 2014). Convinced that an
amateur organization (NCAA) partnering with a professional organization (NBA) to control
young kids through summer programs was an antitrust violation, Vaccaro began searching for a
way to hold them accountable (Solomon, 2014). In 2009, Vaccaro found his avenue for holding
the NCAA accountable -- by convincing O’Bannon to be the lead plaintiff in the antitrust
lawsuit.
On July 21, 2009, using Michael Hausfeld from the law firm Hausfeld LLP as his
representative, Ed O’Bannon officially sued the NCAA and Electronic Arts and Collegiate
Licensing Company their usage of student-athlete likenesses without consent and the NCAA for
restricting trade, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Vaccaro, who had been an
opponent of the NCAA for years, claiming that they denied student-athletes their rights,
continued to be involved with the case as an unpaid consultant to assist the plaintiffs (Garcia,
2010). In January of 2010, Judge Claudia Wilkin combined the O’Bannon case with another
similar case that had been filed before O’Bannon. The plaintiff of the earlier case was Sam
Keller, a former quarterback for both Arizona State University and the University of Nebraska;
his lawsuit was also against EA Sports and the NCAA to recover damages from the video game
producer for utilizing his likeness without his consent (Solomon, 2014).

78

In 2008, Keller had entered the National Football League (NFL) draft in hopes of being
drafted into the professional league. However, Keller went undrafted and was signed by the
Oakland Raiders as an undrafted free agent, only to be waived a month later, before the NFL
season began. A year later, in May of 2009, Keller filed his lawsuit against the NCAA and EA
Sports, which was eventually combined with the O’Bannon case (Elias, 2011).
Correlation of NCAA Violations to the O’Bannon Lawsuit. The idea of paying
college athletes for their service on the playing field has been a topic for debate long before
Sonny Vacarro recruited Ed O’Bannon as his key plaintiff in a lawsuit against the NCAA.
Institutions have been paying players and getting in trouble for these transgressions against
NCAA policies for years. In the 1980s the Southern Methodist University (SMU) football
program was dealt massive penalties by the NCAA after it was revealed that the program had
been paying players illegally for years on end. In the 1990s, it was discovered that a University
of Michigan (UM) basketball booster had given many of the players on the basketball team
illegal cash and gifts. The NCAA handed out harsh penalties to UM as well after finalizing its
investigation in 2003. While neither of these cases was brought up during the O’Bannon hearing,
both of them have links that connect and provides an example of the larger issues at play in the
O’Bannon lawsuit. The basic argument of O’Bannon v. NCAA & EA Sports was what they saw
as the mistreatment of college athletes from a financial standpoint, and the massive discrepancy
to the amount of revenue generated by the sports these athletes play compared to the scholarship
they are offered. These are two examples of the numerous egregious cases of paying student
athletes for their performance even though the NCAA considered them amateurs however, the
O’Bannon lawsuit wasn’t just about the NCAA’s amateurism rule. There was also the issue of
the usage of the player’s names, images, and likenesses in video games.

79

EA Sports and Use of Student-Athletes’ Likenesses. To gain a better understanding of
the lawsuit, it is important to understand the reasons behind the filings and why the athletes
targeted these specific defendants in the case. Targeting the NCAA makes sense for the studentathletes because, as the governing body of college athletics, it enforces the rules that they believe
infringe on their rights. What needs further examination are the alleged violations of the studentathletes’ likenesses? In this section I will examine the specific allegations against EA Sports.
EA Sports. EA Sports, also known as EA Games or Electronic Arts, is an American
video game development company that was founded in early 1982. Although the company has
several different game divisions, one of the more popular subset of games – the specific focus of
this research – is the EA Sports division of the corporation. This division has been responsible
for creating and distributing realistic video games based on professional and collegiate sports
that utilize the likenesses of athletes from the teams and colleges that actually participate in those
sports. In recent years the popularity of these games has spiked, helping the EA Corporation to
post $4.3 billion in revenue for the 2015 fiscal year (EA Staff, 2015).
One of the main draws of the games is the users’ ability to actively control a recognizable
player in the game through the video game platform. And although the collegiate-level games do
not list player’s names, either on the jersey or on the team rosters, the attributes of the players are
unmistakable as the likenesses of the actual players on the actual college team. This usage of
player likenesses was the main reason that EA Sports was named in the lawsuit along with the
NCAA. The plaintiffs in the case believed that the NCAA and EA Sports had entered into
contracts which allowed the video game maker to use player attributes in their games in order to
profit, thereby violating their rights, as they had not consented to their likenesses being used in
the games.

80

The Lawsuit’s Progress to Trial. Both O’Bannon and Keller saw the NCAA and EA
Sports profiting from their sports achievements while they were not, prompting their individual
lawsuits that were eventually joined into a class-action lawsuit in 2009 by Judge Claudia Wilkin.
On February 8, 2010, Judge Wilkin denied a motion filed by the NCAA to dismiss the
class action lawsuit, which opened the case up and allowed representatives of the plaintiffs to
begin collecting evidence during the discovery process. This decision is considered historic
because it grants the plaintiffs access to the contracts the NCAA holds, allowing them to
examine exactly how student-athlete images rights are sold (Solomon, 2014).
In March of 2010, more former college football and basketball players joined the classaction lawsuit. Some of these new members, eleven total, were not recent athletes, but rather had
ended their college careers in the 1960s. Although the added members of the lawsuit didn’t
change its purview, they did give some context for how long the NCAA has affected the studentathletes (Thomas, 2010).
Judge Wilkin dismissed EA Sports from the O’Bannon lawsuit in May of 2011, citing
lack of evidence that EA conspired with the NCAA to willfully deny student-athletes any sort of
compensation for the use of their images and likenesses. However, two months later, in light of
new evidence presented by the plaintiffs, she pulled EA back into the lawsuit, stating that the
new allegations revealed that EA Sports had agreed with the NCAA to not compensate studentathletes after their playing careers had ended (Gullo, 2011). To further support their case, e-mails
disclosed by the NCAA during the discovery process revealed that, dating back to 2003, the
NCAA was aware that EA Sports was using actual real-life characteristics from college athletes
in their video games. In a 2003 e-mail, Peter Davis, the NCAA Director of Corporate Alliances,
wrote, “We don’t actually use player names but we do use all the attributes and jersey numbers

81

of the players” (Solomon, p.1 2012.) The plaintiffs allege that this proves there was collusion
between the NCAA and EA Sports to deny the athletes compensation (Solomon, 2012). A
deposition taken in 2013 from a former EA Sports executive revealed that their college sports
video games were specifically designed around the college student-athletes, though without
using their actual names. The former executive, Jeremy Strauser, testified in the deposition that
the games were made using avatars for specific players in order to make the games more realistic
(Solomon, 2013). The following month, the plaintiffs entered documents into the record that
showed that EA Sports also used real game footage from college contests to develop the avatars
that mimicked the actual players for their video games. The plaintiffs also alleged that the NCAA
was “incentivized to ‘look the other way’” (Solomon, 2013); the plaintiffs produced a quote from
then-president of the NCAA, Myles Brand, saying that the NCAA can handle any of the legal
issues that may arise from this practice (Solomon, 2013).
The NCAA attempted to end the case again in January of 2013, before it could move to
class action status, arguing that the plaintiffs had changed their complaints in the prior months in
an act of “gamesmanship” (Solomon, 2013). Judge Wilkin ruled that the tactic was not of
sufficient merit to prevent the case from moving toward class action status (Solomon, 2013). In
July of that year, Judge Wilkin advised the plaintiffs that in order for their suit to be considered
for class action status, they would need current college student-athletes to join the lawsuit. In
light of this, six active student-athletes joined the lawsuit in order to help it gain class action
certification (Solomon, 2013). The plaintiffs had already increased pressure on the defendants by
seeking damages for current athletes based on the use and marketing of their images and
likenesses, rather than only pursuing damages for past athletes.

82

In September of 2013, EA Sports announced it would settle all claims by the plaintiffs in
the video game suit. A $40 million settlement was reached that included both current and former
athletes (Solomon, 2013). Shortly thereafter, the O’Bannon lawsuit was certified partially as a
class action suit, which opened the door for the plaintiffs to challenge the NCAA rules on
amateurism. The plaintiffs had previously proposed a possible remedy in which the NCAA could
still maintain its amateurism model for the current student-athletes by setting up a trust for the
athletes. The idea was a way for the athletes to recoup monies from television rights as
compensation they could access once their collegiate careers had ended (Solomon, 2012.)
However, the judgement barred the plaintiffs from seeking compensation and damages from the
NCAA for television rights (Solomon, 2013). Later in November of 2013, the NCAA sued EA
Sports and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) claiming that they did not protect the NCAA
with satisfactory liability insurance during settlement negotiations. The suit claimed that CLC
negotiated a licensing agreement with EA on behalf of the NCAA that cleared the NCAA of any
wrong-doing should something arise (Solomon, 2013).
Both the plaintiffs and defendants requested a summary judgment in April 2014. The
request was denied but, during this process, Judge Wilkin set the date for a bench trial to take
place, beginning on June 9, 2014 (Solomon, 2014). The next month, the plaintiffs changed
course, deciding not to pursue damages against the NCAA on an individual basis. Instead, they
concentrated their efforts on preparing for a bench trial against the NCAA and set their focus on
the antitrust portion of the lawsuit. In light of this change, the NCAA unsuccessfully attempted
to push back the trial date (Solomon, 2014).
Bench Trial. On June 9, 2014, the case of O’Bannon vs. NCAA officially began in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. Almost five years after the

83

original filing, the case finally proceeded with the plaintiffs charging the NCAA with violating
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (Miller, 2014). The trial continued until June 27, 2014, when
Judge Wilkin heard final arguments in the bench trial from both the plaintiffs and the defendants
(Miller, 2014). On August 8th Judge Wilkin released her judgement in a 99-page ruling, siding
with the plaintiffs in their claims of antitrust violations by the NCAA. Two days later NCAA
President Mark Emmert announced that the NCAA would appeal the decision, which was filed
on August 21st in the 9th District Court of Appeals.
Testimony. O’Bannon vs NCAA was a 15-day bench trial during which many different
witnesses took the stand; in all, 23 witnesses were called to testify. During the trial there were
287 exhibits presented to the court, adding up to almost 4000 pages of transcripts, ultimately
culminating in Judge Wilkins’ 99-page written decision (Supreme Court ruling background).
Each side utilized expert testimony to defend its position. In this next section I will review the
testimony of some of the witnesses and balance their testimony with how they were perceived by
Judge Wilkin, as evidenced by her written decision. The key points in the trial and ultimately the
key points in Judge Wilkin's decision highlighted below include antitrust law, student-athlete's
rights, restraint of trade, price-fixing, the NCAA amateurism rule, and student-athlete
compensation.
Day one of the O’Bannon vs NCAA trial started off with the namesake, and key witness
for the case, Ed O’Bannon. However, when he was done testifying, Stanford economics
professor emeritus, Dr. Roger Noll, took the stand and laid the groundwork for the prosecution
and their antitrust case against the NCAA. Dr. Noll has extensive knowledge of antitrust law and
has been called upon as a witness in cases revolving around athletics. Noll argued that the
NCAA operates as a cartel, restricting student-athletes’ rights, and also engages in price fixing,

84

both of which violate antitrust laws. The NCAA attempted to counter Noll’s testimony with that
of Dr. Daniel Rubinfeld, a professor of economics at New York University. Rubinfeld argued
that the NCAA operates to preserve the idea of amateurism, allowing student-athletes the ability
to gain an education while competing for their respective institutions (Munson, 2014). Their
conflicting testimony during the trial set the stage for how the case would be tried (Munson,
2014).
The basis for Noll’s testimony was that the NCAA is an anti-competitive monopoly that
restricts the rights of student-athletes, thus limiting the compensation that players could receive
way beyond what their market value and market price would otherwise be (Wilkin, 2014). In his
research, Noll has examined basketball and football recruits, the athletic scholarship offers they
received, and where they played for their collegiate careers. Noll established in his testimony
how recruited high school athletes choose a particular institution to play for and the benefits that
drive that decision. He laid out the stark differences in the benefits that a highly ranked high
school athlete would receive from a Division I institution to that of a lower Division institution.
Ultimately Judge Wilkin agreed with Noll, writing that the data supports his conclusion that “if
the top athletes are offered a D-I scholarship, they take it. They do not go anywhere else (Trial
Tr. 114:6-:7, Wilkin, 2014), indicating that the opportunities and benefits of being a D-I athlete
far outweigh the lesser options.
Noll also testified that some athletes may have the opportunity to play professionally
overseas or in smaller professional leagues other than the National Basketball Association
(NBA) and the National Football League (NFL) right out of high school, but that too few athletes
had ever attempted to do that to allow for pertinent research. NBA and NFL rules prevent
athletes from being recruited out of high school. Therefore, to further develop their skills,

85

athletes usually have to attend college to play for their athletic teams. While they could play
professionally overseas or in smaller leagues to further develop their skills while fulfilling the
age requirements, too few athletes have attempted that route to judge whether or not this would
increase their likelihood of being drafted into the leagues and, thereby, increasing their earning
potential. Noll concluded in his testimony that the benefits offered from Division I schools to
highly recruited high school athletes were far greater than they would receive from smaller
institutions or other professional leagues. He also added that none of the other professional
leagues provided the same opportunity to earn a higher education that they could get from a
Division I institution (Wilkin, 2014). Judge Wilkin agreed with Dr. Noll’s assertions about why
student-athletes accept offers to play sports at Division I schools:
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that there are no professional football or
basketball leagues capable of supplying a substitute for the bundle of goods and services
that FBS football and Division I basketball schools provide. These schools comprise a
relevant college education market, as described above. (Wilkin, 2014)
Later in his testimony, Dr. Noll testified that the rules the NCAA enforces restrain the
recruiting battles between institutions (Wilkin, 2014). This allows the NCAA to limit athletic
scholarships based on their grant-in-aid rule, which only allows student-athletes to receive
scholarships up to the cost of attendance at the institution. Dr. Noll argued that if the grant-in-aid
was not limited, then schools could compete for better student-athletes as recruits. Thus, the rules
restrain trade. Judge Wilkin wrote in her decision that the opinions of Dr. Noll “are consistent
with the opinions of the NCAA’s own economic expert, Dr. Daniel Rubinfeld, who testified that
the NCAA operates as a “joint venture which imposes restraints” on trade” (Id. 2922:20-:2,
Wilkin, 2014). Dr. Rubinfeld also asserted that this restraint was lawful because it assists in

86

competitive ideals; however, in a rare moment of courtroom drama, it came out that in one of his
own economic texts, Dr. Rubinfeld referred to the NCAA as a “cartel” but during his testimony
referred to them as “a group of firms that impose a restraint (Wilkin, 2014, p. 22). This was an
important moment because it showed that Dr. Rubinfeld at one point agreed with the conclusion
of the NCAA operating as a cartel. Judge Wilkin concluded that when a recruit decides to attend
an institution, that institution provides tuition, room and board, fees, and book costs, which is a
small cost to the institution. In turn, the recruit provides his athletic performance and skills and
also the use of his likeness, name, and other attributes. She went on to state:
However, the schools agree to value the latter at zero by agreeing not to compete with
each other to credit any other value to the recruit in the exchange. This is an
anticompetitive effect. Thus, the Court finds that the NCAA has the power -- and
exercises that power -- to fix prices and restrain competition in the college education
market that Plaintiffs have identified. (Wilkin, 2014, p. 22)
Judge Wilkin asserted in her written opinion that the NCAA and its member institutions
do, in fact, engage in price-fixing and that the agreement restrains trade in college athletics
(Wilkin, 2014). She went on to write that without the price-fixing, institutions could contend for
recruits by offering them the ability to compete at the Division I level while they attend college
for a lower price. By allowing price-fixing to occur, the NCAA has allowed institutions to
increase the amount the student-athletes need to pay to attend (Wilkin, 2014).
During his time on the witness stand, Dr. Noll also testified that elite football and
basketball student-athletes could be defined as sellers on an open trade market. The institutions
that recruit them are the buyers of their goods and services from an athletic standpoint and limit
their compensation to the grant-in-aid under the guise of amateurism. Essentially, the colleges

87

are selling a college education market to the recruits, yet limiting them on the amount of
compensation they can receive. However, there is a parallel market for the athletic service and
licensing rights of the athletes with no limit to the compensation the institutions can receive from
the athletes’ services. Dr. Noll testified that, “From that perspective, the NCAA’s restrictions on
student-athlete compensation still represent a form of price fixing but create a buyers’ cartel,
rather than a sellers’ cartel” (Wilkin, 2014, p. 23). Wilkin would write in her decision that, due to
the price competition between the college education market and the market for recruits’ athletic
services and licensing rights, the NCAA restrains trade:
Thus, because Plaintiffs’ college education market is essentially a mirror image of the
market for recruits’ athletic services and licensing rights, the Court finds that the NCAA
exercises market power, fixes prices, and restrains competition in both markets. (Wilkin,
2014, p. 23)
Later in his testimony Dr. Noll took aim at the NCAA’s assertion that the amateurism
rule as necessary to maintain a competitive balance in college athletics. Judge Wilkin wrote in
her opinion that she agreed with Noll, finding that the NCAA’s current restrictions on any sort of
compensation for student-athletes does not allow for a competitive balance in college athletics
(Wilkin, 2014). She later disagreed with NCAA President Mark Emmert when he testified that
“the rules over the hundred-year history of the NCAA around amateurism have focused on, first
of all, making sure that any resources that are provided to a student-athlete are only those that are
focused on his or her getting an education” (Trial Tr. 1737:8-:12; Wilkin, 2014, p. 24). Judge
Wilkin wrote in opposition to that statement that historical evidence regarding the NCAA
presented during the trial showed that the amateurism rules have been very inconsistent
throughout the organization’s history (Wilkin, 2014). Noll testified numerous studies by sports

88

economists since the 1970s have come to the conclusion that the amateurism rule has had no
noticeable effect on competitive balance in college athletics (Wilkin, 2014). Judge Wilkin went
on to write that it was not surprising that the studies showed that competitive balance was not a
concern for the NCAA, since the NCAA’s other rules and policies seem to suggest it does little
to achieve competitive balance. Judge Wilkin summarized her findings:
Here, the NCAA has not presented sufficient evidence to show that its restrictions on
student-athlete compensation actually have any effect on competitive balance, let alone
produce an optimal level of competitive balance. The consensus among sports economists
who have studied the issue, as summarized by Drs. Noll and Rascher, is that the NCAA’s
current restrictions on compensation do not have any effect on competitive balance.
(Wilkin, 2014, p. 83)
In fact, she wrote that the restrictions on student-athlete compensation “lead many
schools simply to spend larger portions of their athletic budgets on coaching, recruiting, and
training facilities” (Wilkin, 2014, p. 35), and that the NCAA does nothing to control the
spending of these high-revenue institutions are spending (Wilkin, 2014). Dr. Emmert even
conceded this point during the trial, stating that it’s not the mission of the NCAA to eliminate
advantages created by an institution using its revenues to build up its athletics programs, enhance
its image, and increase the value of its tradition (Wilkin, 2014).
The testimony from the trial showed, and the plaintiffs argued, that the NCAA was
operating in a manner that restricted trade and limited the opportunities that a student-athlete
could achieve. The defense argued that the NCAA does not operate as a cartel and that the
amateurism rule does not restrict trade, utilizing the decision rendered from the Board of Regents

89

v. NCAA case. Judge Wilkin’s decision supported the plaintiff’s side of the argument and she
made her decisions accordingly.
Trial Findings and Pay for Play. Throughout the O’Bannon trial, the NCAA asserted
that its rules are reasonable and help create more opportunities for institutions and studentathletes to compete in Division I football and basketball which, consequently, increases the
number of games that can be played. The NCAA refers to this increase in games and
opportunities as “increased output” (Wilkin, 2014). However, Judge Wilkin denied this assertion
in her written opinion, finding that the restrictions the NCAA imposes on its member institutions
and on student-athlete compensation do nothing to increase output. She continued, writing that
the reason the number of institutions participating in Division I football and basketball is
increasing is because competing on that level typically boosts the profile of the institution, which
avails the institution of more revenue through its athletic programs (Wilkin, 2014). Dr.
Rubinfeld, arguing for the defense, disagreed with the findings of the court; however, he could
not provide another economist that would counter the plaintiff’s claim nor did he offer any
testimony that would contradict the specific findings (Wilkin, 2014). Judge Wilkin asked Dr.
Rubinfeld if his thoughts were supported by any economic literature to which he indicated to his
most recent reports as corroboration. However, none of the recent research on the subject
support the claim that “the NCAA’s restrictions on student-athlete compensation promote
competitive balance” (Wilkin, 2014, p. 84); in fact, one of the articles Rubinfeld cited was from
2004 and concluded with a quote from the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Noll, in which he states that
there is no evidence to support the notion that the NCAA rules and regulations encourage
competitive balance (Wilkin, 2014).

90

Ultimately, Judge Wilkin issued an injunction that would allow the athletic scholarships
for men’s football and basketball to remain in place, covering the full cost of attendance at each
institution, while allowing these athletes to also receive deferred payments for the use of their
names, images, and likenesses (NIL’s) for each year that the student athlete remained
academically eligible. The ruling also required the NCAA to cap those deferred payments at no
more than $5,000 per year, per athlete (Solomon, 2015).
NCAA Appeal. Shortly after Judge Wilkin ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the
O’Bannon v. NCAA case, the NCAA announced that it would be appealing the decision. On
March 17, 2015, that became reality when both sides were back in court to begin oral arguments
in the NCAA’s appeal of the original decision. Solomon (2015) wrote that the appeal was based
in large part on the NCAA’s objection to Judge Wilkin’s finding that collegiate men’s basketball
and football student-athletes should be allowed to be compensated for services beyond the value
of their athletic scholarship. The NCAA maintained that student-athletes should be held to an
amateur status and, thus, not be compensated for their services on the playing field. It (the
NCAA) felt that Judge Wilkin ignored a court ruling from the 1984, Oklahoma Board of Regents
v. NCAA, that protected amateurism in college athletics. An excerpt from the Supreme Court’s
opinion on that case reads: “in order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA’s)
‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class and the like (Board of
Regents v. NCAA).” The NCAA has used that excerpt successfully in many cases since to defend
its amateurism model and to stave off the argument that student-athletes should be compensated
above and beyond their scholarships.
Another argument the NCAA used in its appeal of the O’Bannon case was that the
plaintiffs could not argue for a case of antitrust laws because of the First Amendment and the

91

Copyright Act (Solomon, 2015). The basis for the NCAA’s argument on this topic was that no
state has a law that mandates payment for the usage of names, images, and likenesses in noncommercial instances and that the First Amendment and the Copyright Act prohibit that practice
(Solomon, 2015).
On September 30, 2015, a three-judge panel for the Ninth District Court ruled on the
NCAA’s appeal of the O’Bannon v. NCAA case. The panel, which included judges Jay Bybee,
Sidney Thomas, and Gordon Quist, rendered a ruling that included a mixed bag of responses for
each side of the case. Although they affirmed the plaintiff’s central argument that the NCAA’s
amateurism rules do violate certain aspects of federal antitrust laws, according to McCann
(2015), they also limited the capacity of the damages the plaintiffs were asking on behalf of the
student-athletes. In the ruling, the judges wrote that the NCAA would only be required to allow
institutions to increase their scholarships up to the cost of attendance, which was moot because
that was a practice that was already occurring. Prior to the decision the NCAA had implemented
a new governance structure that allowed for the five wealthiest conferences (the Power 5) to use
this scholarship structure (New, 2015). The judges were also concerned with the original ruling
that provided for institutions to compensate student-athletes up to $5,000 beyond educational
expenses, stating that the payments would “transform NCAA sports into minor league status
(Bybee, 2015). In addition, the judges found the cap restriction confusing, questioning how a
$5,000 cap is any different than $0 cap. Again, the judges were not in support of the idea of
allowing cash payments to student-athletes that were unrelated to their educational endeavors
(McCann, 2015).
While the judges sided with the NCAA on not allowing student-athlete compensation in
cash payments, it also agreed with Judge Wilkin on some of her criticisms of the NCAA and its

92

policies. Primarily, the judges sided with Judge Wilkin, finding that the NCAA had violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act: “After an extensive bench trial, the district court properly found that the
NCAA and its members had violated the Sherman Act, and the court did not abuse its discretion
or commit clear error in issuing a narrowly tailored injunction” (Bybee, 2015, p. 22). Judge
Bybee, who wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel, further stated that the NCAA rules
should be held to the same accountability standards in the antitrust realm as any industry would.
The Appellate Court panel agreed with Judge Wilkin’s ruling that the NCAA’s amateurism rules
do prevent institutions from using compensation as a means to compete for recruits (McCann,
2015).
Ultimately the three-judge panel’s ruling hit the NCAA the hardest on their steadfast
ideal of college student-athlete amateurism, agreeing mostly with Judge Wilkin on this point. In
the summary of their findings, the judges wrote that:
The NCAA’s claim that it should have been left to its own devices in administering its
“amateurism” regime is without basis. As a cartel, it unlawfully prevents schools from
acting in their own self-interest. As a billion-dollar sports business, it supplants the
decision-making authority of educators. The Sherman Act sets limits on what violators
may and may not do. (Bybee, 2015, p. 57)
McCann (2015) opined that this was trouble for the NCAA moving forward, as it would
make it more susceptible to an increased number of antitrust lawsuits, especially those brought
by student-athletes, as the language utilized by the judges was contrary to the beliefs of the
NCAA. As New (2015) states, it is going to be more difficult for the NCAA to rely on the 1984
Oklahoma v. NCAA decision, given that the judges wrote that the 1984 opinion doesn’t give
amateurism validation on all issues.

93

Supreme Court Petition. In March of 2016, the plaintiffs in the O’Bannon case filed a
petition for review of their case by the Supreme Court of the United States. In their brief, the
plaintiffs once again argued that collegiate sports are a business that operates under the rules of
commercialization and that the revenue generated from the business takes it out of the realm of
amateur sports. The brief argued that “The NCAA should not receive a windfall of categorical
immunity for what in any other industry would be an unreasonable restraint of trade” (O’Bannon
Reply Brief, Supreme Court, 2016, p. 4). The plaintiffs also argued for a Supreme Court ruling
based on both previous court decisions that have found that the NCAA violates antitrust law yet
continues to use the Board of Regents v. NCAA ruling on antitrust as a victory even though this
defense was rejected in that case (O’Bannon Reply Brief, Supreme Court, 2016).
The NCAA requested that the Supreme Court deny the plaintiff’s petition, filing its own
petition for the Supreme Court to review their case (Zalesin, 2016). In its petition to the high
court, the NCAA argued that review of the case was of high importance due to the nature and
important status that college athletics holds (NCAA brief -Supreme Court 2016). The NCAA
also argued against the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision that the NCAA’s “amateurism rules
violated federal antitrust law and that the lower courts allowed the case to move forward based
on an incorrect interpretation of the First Amendment” (Zalesin, 2016, p. 1).
Though both sides of the O’Bannon case wanted to have the Supreme Court hear the
case, they had differing reasons for their petitions. The plaintiffs in the case wanted the Supreme
Court to rule on whether college athletes should be paid beyond the cost of attending college,
while the NCAA argued that the 1984 Board of Regents case set the precedent for amateurism in
college sports, which bans the pay for play argument (Zalesin, 2016). The plaintiffs, in their
reply brief to the Supreme Court, stated that the "Board of Regents did not depart from the well-

94

established body of antitrust law providing that the suppression of competition (such as an
agreement not to pay college athletes) can never qualify as a 'competitive benefit' under the
Sherman Act” (O’Bannon Reply Brief, Supreme Court, 2016, p. 7).
The Supreme Court will hear both petitions on the case together rather than separately,
even though they filed separate petitions. O’Bannon et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, case number 15-1167, in the Supreme Court of the United States, is slated to be
heard in late 2016 (Berkowitz, 2016).
On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court declined to hear the O’Bannon antitrust case
against the NCAA (New, 2016). The Supreme Court did not offer any explanation as to why it
declined to hear the case. Although the Court declined to hear the case, some experts such as
Munson (2016) have declared the ruling a victory for the NCAA. The NCAA was in a position
where their amateurism model was at stake, and unlimited payments to college athletes could
have become reality, however with the decision to not hear the case pay for play has remained
sidelined (Munson, 2016). The NCAA’s amateurism rule remained intact with the Supreme
Court declining to hear the case however it still leaves the lower court’s ruling to stand which, as
many have speculated, creates an instructional guide on how to sue the NCAA for antitrust
violations (New, 2016). Edelman (2016) opined that the Supreme Court declining to hear the
case, and the anticlimactic way in which it occurred, was banal, but that it did confirm that the
NCAA is a target for antitrust laws and because of this the O’Bannon case may prove pivotal in
providing a way in which reform will occur in college athletics.

95

Pay for Play Scandals
The O’Bannon lawsuit didn’t just come about based on new allegations that the plaintiffs
believed deserved merit without any historical input. There was a history of violations of NCAA
rules on amateurism and sanctions levied against institutions that provide a backdrop for the
issues O’Bannon challenged. Student-athletes receiving compensation has always been at the
heart of the pay for play argument and the NCAA rules on amateurism. To put the O’Bannon v.
NCAA lawsuit into perspective, we can look at two cases in the history of the pay for play
debate. NCAA scandals have involved institutions that have violated the amateurism rules and
been handed stiff penalties for illegally paying student-athletes. Two of the most notorious cases
of financial benefits being given to student-athletes under the table, which ultimately led to
major sanctions by the NCAA against the institutions, were the “Death Penalty” case at Southern
Methodist University in 1987, and the sanctions levied against the University of Michigan in
2003. Each of these cases gives a better understanding of how competitive the recruitment of
highly touted high school athletes can be, and also how far an institution or a booster to that
institution will go in violations of the rules to aid a student athlete monetarily.
Southern Methodist University. On February 25, 1987, the NCAA handed out the
stiffest penalty possible in college athletics. The NCAA came down hard on Southern Methodist
University (SMU) in an effort to prove a point to higher education athletic departments across
the nation. The punishment that SMU received from the NCAA was grimly called “The Death
Penalty,” and it came with cancellation of the 1987 SMU football season. It was only the third
time in the history of the NCAA that the organization levied its most powerful punishment tool –
reserved for use against repeat offenders (Dodds, 2015). What led up to the NCAA levying the

96

massive punishment on SMU goes right to the heart of the Ed O’Bannon trial dealing with
compensating student-athletes.
SMU is located in Dallas, Texas, and in the early 1980s was a powerhouse football
program in the NCAA. In 1982, the Mustangs went undefeated, won the Cotton Bowl, and
finished ranked number two in the nation (Dodds, 2015). Their success was, in large part, due to
the play of their top two running backs, Eric Dickerson and Craig James, and the team was given
the nickname the “Pony Express,” a pun tied to the school mascot. However, the fan attention the
team received for its play on the field was equally measured by all the attention their business
practices were getting from the NCAA behind the scenes. What would be revealed from the
NCAA investigation is that athletic boosters for SMU were supplying funds to the institution and
the school was systematically paying football players illegally. The first payments began as gifts
from recruiters to entice recruits to play for SMU and eventually grew into payments once they
enrolled. As David Whitford (2013) explains, “No reasonable person disputes that SMU got
what it deserved. SMU boosters were paying players; SMU coaches knew all about it; and
numerous SMU officials — all the way up to Bill Clements, a two-time Texas governor and
chairman of the university’s board — were actively involved” (p. 1).
Rumors first started to swirl around Dickerson’s recruitment to SMU. He was a highly
touted “high school running back so gifted he could have chosen any school in the country to
play for in 1979” (Dodds, 2015, p. 1) but SMU wasn’t on his radar. He originally committed to
Texas A&M and soon after received a brand new Trans Am, which many believe was a
promised gift from A&M for committing (Dodds, 2015). However, a short time later he abruptly
de-committed from A&M and committed to SMU. To this day there has never been an admission
/confirmation about why, but many suspect that illegal pay-for-play may be the “reason that a

97

popular sports joke in the early ’80s was that Dickerson took a pay-cut when he graduated and
went to the NFL” (Dodds, 2015, p. 1).
Trouble started brewing for SMU when it recruited and signed highly touted offensive
lineman Sean Stopperich in 1983 from Pittsburgh. Stopperich had severely injured his knee in
high school and couldn’t perform athletically as he once did, rarely seeing the field for SMU
(Dodds, 2015). It was later revealed through the NCAA investigation of SMU that the university
had paid Stopperich $5000 to commit to play at the program and move his family to Dallas
(Dodds, 2015). According to Dodds (2015), Stopperich left SMU after one year and shortly
thereafter became the first witness for the NCAA in its investigation into SMU.
The first major penalties for SMU were handed down in 1985 when the NCAA banned
the football team from playing in any end of the season bowl games for two years and took away
45 scholarships for two years (Dodds, 2015). It was during this time that the NCAA began to
discuss harsher penalties for institutions that were deemed repeat violators. Although the NCAA
has always had the power to ban institutions from competing, the repeat violators rule was
enacted as a way for the NCAA to ban institutions from competing in a sport for an entire
season. As Greg McFarlane explains:
Officially, it's called "repeat-violator legislation." To summarize, if a school gets
punished for one major violation, then commits another within five years, it's subject to
the death penalty. That includes prohibiting the school from playing that particular sport
for up to two years. This mean banning the coaches from coaching anywhere,
withholding grants and dismissing any school official who sits on an NCAA board.
Contrary to its name, incurring the death penalty doesn't mean barring a college from
competing in said sport forever. (2012)

98

In 1986, the NCAA investigation into SMU found that the university was still paying
football players money under table while still on probation from previous violations. The school
had 13 football players still on its illegal payroll; instead of immediately ending the payments
outlined in its initial punishment, SMU opted to utilize a plan to gradually end the payments
since it had promised money to athletes until their graduation (Dodds, 2015). Since this occurred
within the five-year window of the repeat violators rule, the NCAA came down hard on SMU
and imposed the Death Penalty to the institution, banning the football from competing in 1987
and stripping 55 scholarships over a four-year period (McFarlane, 2012). The team was allowed
to compete in 1988 but only for road games, as the NCAA didn’t want its opponents to be
financially affected; however, the school chose to cancel its 1988 season as well, citing that it
was unable to field a viable team due to the inexperience of the players that remained (Funk,
2016).
The death penalty that was levied against SMU impacted the program for many years,
and some would argue that the institution is still feeling the ramifications. The football program
couldn’t field a full roster of scholarship players until 1992 due to the punishment; they did not
have a winning season until 1997 and they wouldn’t make it back to a bowl game until 2009
(Funk, 2016). Due to the long-term ramifications that affected the SMU program from the death
penalty, the NCAA has re-evaluated the manner in which it sanctions schools. Funk (2016)
elaborates: “While integrity and credibility is very important to maintain in college sports,
the effect of such a penalty is something the NCAA does their best to avoid handing down
now” (p. 1).
And much like the Ed O’Bannon case, paying college athletes was the primary element in
the SMU scandal, which Dodds (2015) summarizes:

99

These days, those in and around the world of college sports don’t talk much about what
the penalties for paying players should be; instead, many are wondering whether there
should be any penalty at all for paying college athletes. The arguments in favor of paying
college athletes are manifold, especially considering they often generate millions on
behalf of their universities. (p. 1)
Since the SMU case there has been a push for a pay for play structure in college athletics.
SMU wasn’t the first program to pay its athletes as a violation to NCAA rules, and it won’t be
the last. When O’Bannon and the rest of the plaintiffs were arguing against the NCAA rules,
paying student-athletes what they believed to be their worth was at the heart of the case, and is
what SMU was doing decades before O’Bannon ever went to trial. As the SMU case was
reaching a conclusion in the early 1990s, the scandal that was occurring at The University of
Michigan was already underway. And although the method was different from the occurrences at
SMU, the outcome was essentially the same; payment to players, illegal activities, NCAA
violations, and more fuel to the fire of the argument for pay for play that would drive the
O’Bannon case.
University of Michigan. In February 1996, five University of Michigan (UM)
basketball players and one highly sought after high school recruit were involved in a roll-over
accident while returning to the UM campus after attending a party in Detroit. The driver of the
vehicle was Marcus Taylor, while the other Michigan players involved were Robert Traylor,
Louis Bullock, Willie Mitchell, and Ron Oliver. The high school recruit, who ended up later
committing and playing for Michigan State University, was Mateen Cleaves (Baumgardner,
2013). Because the players had a recruit with them, they were in violation of NCAA rules by
transporting a recruit more than 30 miles away from campus. As the NCAA began to look into

100

the situation, the university admitted to a secondary violation for the event. However, during the
NCAA inquiry it was discovered that during their trip to Detroit, the players had visited the
home of Ed Martin, a University of Michigan booster and former electrician for Ford Motor
Company in Detroit. This would lead into a deeper investigation by UM and the Big Ten
Conference to see what, if any, was the nature of the relationship with Ed Martin and the players
(Baumgardner, 2013).
In March of 1997, UM and the Big Ten released the results of their investigation into the
relationship that Ed Martin had with the basketball players. The investigation, that did not
include the NCAA, revealed that Ed Martin had ingratiated himself into a relationship with many
of the players on the basketball team and had violated minor rules (Baumgardner, 2013). The
investigation also revealed that Martin had ties to the university’s basketball program dating
back to the 1980s and that the trail of violations began at that time. Even though the results of the
1997 investigation revealed minor violations, the university banned Martin from having any
contact with the program going forward (Baumgardner, 2013).
The Detroit Free Press reported in June 1997, that former UM basketball players Chris
Webber and Marcus Taylor both received cash and gifts from Ed Martin during their playing
careers at UM. Martin had denied all along that he had ever given money to any of the studentathletes at UM. The report in the Free Press also indicated that the sources that revealed the cash
payments to Webber and Taylor also stated that Webber used money he made after turning
professional to repay Ed Martin (Baumgardner, 2013).
After Martin was banned from the UM basketball program, the university hired an
independent law firm to investigate him further after it was reported that he was part of an illegal
bookmaking group while he was working at Ford. The investigation uncovered that Martin had

101

also had a close relationship with ex-UM basketball player Chris Webber during his time at UM
(Baumgardner, 2013). The law firm’s investigation revealed that it was very likely that Martin
had given money and gifts to Webber while he was competing at UM. Webber at the time denied
the allegations stating that any gifts he had received from Martin occurred before his time at UM
(Baumgardner, 2013).
No serious violations were uncovered after the UM and Big Ten and private
investigations were completed as the NCAA was satisfied with the handling of the investigations
and with the findings. However, in April of 1999, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) raided several homes in the Detroit area based on
information that there was an illegal gambling ring being operated in the area (Baumgardner,
2013). One of the homes that was targeted in the raid was that of Ed Martin. In Martin’s home
they found a large sum of cash and gambling records, which prompted a federal investigation
into Martin and the gambling organization. The federal investigation turned up documents that
indicated that Martin had paid several University of Michigan basketball players substantial
amounts of money and gifts dating back to the 1980s even while some of the players were still in
high school. A month later, in May of 1999, as a result of the investigation, a federal grand jury
subpoenaed several former University of Michigan basketball players to question them regarding
their relationship with Martin (Baumgardner, 2013).
In 2000, several former members of the UM basketball team testified before grand juries
about their involvement with Ed Martin. It was discovered that the players -- Louis Bullock,
Robert Traylor, Chris Webber, Marcus Taylor, and Jalen Rose -- had accepted money from
Martin extending back to their high school playing days all the way through their college years
(Esterbrook, 2002).

102

According to the Esterbrook (2002), in March of 2002, the federal grand jury found Ed
Martin, his wife, and an associate guilty of running an illegal gambling business. The eight-count
indictment also included money laundering: Martin was loaning money, $616,000 total, to the
former UM basketball players as a means of laundering the money from his illegal gambling
activity at Detroit automotive plants.
In September, 2002, Chris Webber was indicted on five charges of lying to a grand jury
and obstruction of justice. It was found that Webber had lied in his 2000 testimony when he
stated that he did not have a relationship with Martin and that he never accepted any money from
him (Baumgardner, 2013). Martin pleaded guilty to running an illegal gambling ring. As part of
his plea Martin testified that he had given over $200,000 to Webber before and during his time
playing for Michigan. Webber denied the allegations, which led to Webber’s indictments. Ed
Martin passed away in February of 2003 while he was awaiting sentencing (Baumgardner,
2013). Martin’s death hurt the perjury case against Webber and he was able to plea to a lesser
charge of criminal contempt in an effort to avoid jail time. In the plea, Webber admitted to
having received and repaid over $38,000 to Martin (Baumgardner, 2013).
The University of Michigan took actions against itself in the form of self-sanctions that
they reported to the NCAA. These sanctions included the vacating of the 1992-1993 season and
the NCAA basketball Final Four appearances for 1992 and 1993. The school also removed those
banners from the basketball arena (Baumgardner, 2013). The sanctions also included vacating
every game from the 1995-1996 season through the 1989-1999 season, a post season ban for the
2002-2003 season, and a two-year probation period (Hakim, 2002).
Baumgardner (2013) writes that on May 8, 2003, the NCAA accepted the self-imposed
sanctions by UM, but also imposed some sanctions of its own -- extending the program’s

103

probation for two additional years and removing one scholarship from the team for the seasons
2004-2005 through 2007-2008. The NCAA penalties also included requiring UM to disassociate
itself from Traylor, Bullock, and Taylor until 2012 and to disassociate itself from Webber until
2013. Chris Webber’s sanction to not associate with the University of Michigan ended on May 8,
2013.
The UM case is a perfect example of how student-athletes can receive cash and gifts even
though it is against the NCAA bylaws. It is also a good case-study for the pay for play argument.
Webber once stated that as a student-athlete he couldn’t bear the sight of seeing his Number 4
Michigan jersey hanging in the bookstore with a $75 price tag while he couldn’t even afford to
buy a pizza (Hagy, 2003). During Webber’s time at UM, the institution claimed almost $19
million in revenues from the basketball program in apparel sales alone (Hagy, 2003), none of
which went to any of the student-athletes who were represented by the apparel. The amount of
money that institutions make for licensing and apparel is one of the main reasons for the pay for
play argument.
The key issues that were raised in the O’Bannon case, which include the allegations of
the mistreatment of student-athletes financially, are directly tied to the violations that occurred at
SMU and UM. It is simple to state that what occurred at SMU and UM was a violation of NCAA
rules, but to be blunt, these scandals were illegal. These institutions, and the many others that
have cheated, were caught illegally cheating to gain an unfair advantage in the arena of college
athletics. Many people have spoken out for these institutions claiming the penalties were too
harsh, but the fact remains that what these institutions did by scoffing in the face of the NCAA
and violating the bylaws that govern every institution was nefarious and the punishment fit the
crime.

104

The O’Bannon case argued for the fair treatment of student-athletes through
compensation from the revenues they generate to their institution through their participation in
their sports. The athletes that received cash and gifts while playing for SMU and UM in violation
of the NCAA rules felt that they deserved the compensation they received based on the sacrifices
they made on the playing field. The O’Bannon case, which came years later, defined a legal path
toward pay for play rather than the illegal mechanisms that were used by the athletes at SMU and
UM. The growing demand from many that the NCAA should adopt a pay for play system in
college athletics may have started illegally in cases such as SMU and UM, but ultimately found a
legal avenue with lawsuits such as O’Bannon v. NCAA. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the
O’Bannon case wasn’t the end to the pay for play argument. The Jenkins case, which is arguing
many of the same points raised by the O’Bannon case, is still currently in federal court.

105

Chapter Six: Secondary Cases
Finally, I am conducting only a brief analysis on the following three cases, Kent
Waldrep, the Northwestern Unionization, and Jenkins. The reason for a brief analysis is because
the first two did not carry major implications for the pay for play argument, and the Jenkins case
has only currently gotten underway and we won’t know the fallout until later. The Waldrep and
Northwestern cases did however add to the debate over student-athlete amateurism and also sent
reverberations through the NCAA which led to policy initiatives. The Waldrep case is important
because it led to the NCAA creating the Catastrophic Injury program for athletes that are
severely injured during play, and the Northwestern case is important because it helped create an
atmosphere of empowerment for student-athletes.
Kent Waldrep Worker’s Compensation Suit
In 1972, Kent Waldrep was recruited by Texas Christian University (TCU) to play
running back for the school’s football program. He signed a letter of intent (LOI) and a financial
aid agreement with the institution that assured him that his tuition, room and board, and ten
dollars per month for incidentals would be paid through an athletic scholarship (Yeakel, 2000).
In October, 1974, while playing running back for TCU, Waldrep was critically injured on a play
against the University of Alabama. His spinal cord was severely injured and, as a result, was
paralyzed from the neck down. After his injury, Waldrep was told he would spend the rest of his
life in a wheelchair. He appealed to TCU and initially the institution helped pay his cost for
medical treatment (Amarillo Globe News, 2000). However, when his medical bills became too
expensive for the institution, TCU changed its stance and told Waldrep it was not liable for his
costs (Amarillo Globe News, 2000). During this time, Waldrep founded the National Paralysis

106

Foundation, which has raised around $30 million for spinal cord research and played a key role
in the passing of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Drape, 1997).
In 1991, citing that TCU had told him and his family during recruitment that they would
take care of him if anything bad occurred while playing, Waldrep filed a worker’s compensation
claim for his injury (Yeakel, 2000). Waldrep contended that the LOI and financial agreement he
had signed upon becoming a student-athlete was the basis of a contract and that the athletic
department controlled his actions as an employer would (Drape, 1997). Waldrep’s argument was
that, due to his agreement with the university and the money he was paid, he was an employee of
the institution and was entitled to worker’s compensation (Yeakel, 2000). The timing of
Waldrep’s case oincided with a major change with the NCAA. In 1991, all Division I athletic
programs began carrying catastrophic insurance policies that would assist student-athletes in
cases such as Waldrep’s, and the NCAA utilized some of its Final Four basketball revenue to
cover the cost (Drape, 1997). Was this due to the legal issues that the Texas courts were facing in
the Waldrep case?
The Texas Workers Compensation Commission (TWCC) agreed with Waldrep’s
assertion that he was an employee of TCU at the time of his injury and awarded him $70 a week
for life dating back to the date of the accident in March of 1993 (Drape, 1997). Although this
case did not directly involve the NCAA, it was viewed as a small victory against the
organization. However, that victory was short live when the Texas Employers Insurance
Association (TEIA), TCU’s insurance carrier, appealed the decision. In 1997, during a trial de
novo, a jury found that Waldrep could not be considered an employee of TCU at the time of his
injury; “the district court rendered a judgement in favor of TEIA” (Yeakel, 2000). No was
money was paid in Waldrep’s favor, and he did not intend on settling the case (Drape, 1997).

107

After the jury rendered the verdict against him in 1997, Waldrep filed an appeal of the
court’s decision. The case of Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance Association was heard in
the Texas court of appeals in June of 2000. During the hearing Waldrep argued that he was an
employee of TCU based on his interpretation of the LOI and financial aid agreements as a
contract for hire. The court did not agree with Waldrep’s assertion and, thus, upheld the original
decision, finding that there was some evidence supporting the jury’s decision that Waldrep was
not considered an employee of TCU at the time of his injury (Yeakel, 2000). This decision ended
the saga of Kent Waldrep’s case for worker’s compensation.
Although Kent Waldrep was never able to win his claim of being an employee of TCU,
he did make an impact for college athletes based on his plight. And it is not hard to argue that,
during the time he was fighting his case, college athletics changed. This change is clearly stated
in the court’s decision in rejecting Waldrep’s appeal in 2000:
In conclusion, we note that we are aware college athletics has changed dramatically over
the years since Waldrep's injury. Our decision today is based on facts and circumstances
as they existed almost twenty-six years ago. We express no opinion as to whether our
decision would be the same in an analogous situation arising today; therefore, our opinion
should not be read too broadly. Having disposed of all of the issues before us, we affirm
the district court's judgment. (Yeakel, 2000)
The Waldrep case shed light on the perception of the student-athlete as an amateur and
concluded at a time during which more scrutiny was being levied on the NCAA and its rule of
amateurism.

108

Northwestern Unionization
In the spring of 2013, the quarterback for Northwestern University’s football team, Kain
Colter, reached out to Ramogi Huma, who is the president of the College Athletes Players
Association, with concerns regarding college student-athletes (ESPN.com, 2015). Colter was
concerned with the welfare of student-athletes and the rights they have within college athletics
and was interested in exploring whether student-athletes have the right to form a union as
employees of the university. The debate around students as employees dates back to a 1999
decision that ruled that interns, residents and fellows at Boston Medical Center were entitled to
the rights and protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (Rosenberger, 2014).
Amy L. Rosenberger (2014) writes that the decision was based on Supreme Court opinion that
states that an employee is one who performs services for another for payment and while under
their control.
Based on the contention that student-athletes could be viewed as employees of the
university, on January 28, 2014, a group of Northwestern University football players, led by
Colter, filed a petition for representation. The petition asked that the players be allowed to decide
whether to select the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) as their representative to
bargain for a collective agreement with the university and for the university to acknowledge
members of the football team as employees (Rosenberger, 2014). The hearings, as certification
of representation, were held February 18-22, 2014, in front of the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB). Northwestern argued that intercollegiate athletics have and will always be a part
of the educational experience for the student-athlete and that a student-athlete’s academics would
be hindered by collective bargaining (Rosenberger, 2014). Rosenberger (2014) writes that
CAPA, on behalf of the student-athletes, argued that the players perform a service for the

109

university and they do that under the university’s control. They went on to argue that the strict
schedules and rules that the student-athletes are held to, combined with compensation for their
services from the university in the form of a scholarship, is evidence that they are employees. On
March 26, 2014, the Chicago District of the NLRB ruled that the Northwestern University
football players should be considered employees of the university and had the right to unionize
based on the arguments from CAPA (ESPN.com, 2015). Brian Bennett (2014) writes that NLRB
regional director Peter Ohr made the decision to allow union rights to the football players based
on the time commitments in their sport and the compensation they receive in the form of a
scholarship, which is based directly on their performance on the field.
On April 9, 2014, the University of Northwestern officially entered an appeal to the
ruling by the NLRB (ESPN.com, 2015). Alan K. Cubbage (2014) writes that Northwestern
considered the decision unprecedented and felt that the director ignored evidence presented by
Northwestern in the case that proved its student-athletes were students and not employees. On
April 24, 2014, the NLRB granted Northwestern University’s request and began to review the
case (ESPN.com, 2015). On July 3, 2014, Northwestern University officially requested that the
NLRB overturn the regional director’s ruling that allowed the football players to unionize
(ESPN.com, 2015). Cubbage (2014) writes that the request was based on the regional director’s
refusal to apply the legal precedent set by a 2004 decision for Brown University that stated that
graduate assistants were considered students rather than employees. Northwestern cited this
ruling, arguing that the football players should be held to the same standards.
After over a year of waiting, on August 17, 2015, the NLRB finally dismissed the petition
by the Northwestern University football players for the right to unionize (Strauss, 2015). The
decision ultimately denied the football players’ claim that they should be considered employees

110

of the university and be allowed to collectively bargain. The decision in the case was unanimous
by the five member board, which declined to exert its jurisdiction in the case (Strauss, 2015).
The board cited competitive balance within college athletics and a possible impact on the NCAA
rules as the reasons for the decision, writes Strauss (2015). The possibility is open for Colter and
CAPA to sue the NLRB and force them to exert jurisdiction in the case, but that would be
considered a longshot (Strauss, 2015).
The Northwestern case is interesting since, for a brief time, the ruling was again in the
favor of the student-athletes. Although this case didn’t directly involve the NCAA, it would
have had major ramifications on the organization had the NLRB not overturned the decision.
Ultimately the NCAA and its rule of amateurism for student-athletes came out on top, and
remains a staple of the established rules of the organization.
Jenkins v. NCAA
In June 2014, as the O’Bannon v. NCAA case was drawing to a close, another antitrust
suit against the NCAA was taking shape in the form of the class action lawsuit Jenkins v. NCAA.
Named for Martin Jenkins, who played football at the University of Clemson, the suit has the
possibility for serious ramifications on the way the NCAA approaches rules related to the
amateurism model. The case is currently working its way through the judicial system. Even
though the suit is named after Jenkins, as Andy Staples (2014) writes, in the world of college
athletics the case is more widely known for who is representing Jenkins: Jeffery Kessler (2014).
Kessler, who is partnered with David Greenspan as the attorneys in the suit, was part of a team of
attorneys who, in 1992, successfully convinced a jury to declare the National Football League’s
(NFL) free agency system illegal (Staples, 2014). The suit helped to bring in the current free
agency plan in the NFL, and now Kessler has set his sights on redefining the college athletics

111

landscape. Jon Solomon (2014) writes that plaintiffs in the Jenkins case are suing the NCAA
and the Power Five conferences, seeking an injunction that will allow an open market in college
athletics, which could create a basis for compensation for the athletes in return for their services.
Kessler’s distrust for the NCAA is highlighted by Paul M. Barrett (2014) when he writes
that Kessler has for years harbored bad feelings for the NCAA and the manner in which it treats
the athletes it represents. Kessler feels that that the NCAA exploits college athletes with illegal
tactics and that it has been doing so for a long time (Barrett, 2014). Barrett (2014) writes that the
Jenkins case plans to disrupt the NCAA by opening college athletics to free market system where
universities can bid for the services of the athletes. He goes on to state that the Jenkins case,
coming on the heels of the O’Bannon case, has the perfect timing; where the O’Bannon case
made some changes, the Jenkins case can completely transform the landscape (2014).
It remains to be seen as to what changes, if any, Jenkins v. NCAA will have on the NCAA
and its amateurism rule. The NCAA continues to defend the rule, but it seems to be standing on
shaky ground. With the recent high profile cases carrying largely anti-NCAA overtones, and the
growing sentiment that seems to harbor ill feelings toward the manner in which the NCAA treats
its athletes, it seems as if changes within the system are coming. However, it is hard to speculate
at this point how things will turn out, especially with the way that the NCAA has been successful
in the past defending itself in the courts.
As I stated previously, I didn’t conduct a comprehensive review of the secondary cases
for particular reasons, however I did conduct a cursory examination of the cases due to the
importance and relevance they carry within the pay for play debate. The Kent Waldrep and
Northwestern University cases weren’t antitrust lawsuits and the parties involved did not sue the
NCAA for their purposes, but they do add credence to the pay for play vs. amateurism debate.

112

The Jenkins case may end up becoming a larger case that could have ramifications that may
extend further than the impact the O’Bannon case, however it is still very early in that case, thus
limiting the extent I can provide within this analysis.
Summary of Cases
Table 1 displays a summary of each case, its litigants, issues, and outcomes.

113

Table 1: Summary of Cases
CASES

LITIGANTS

ISSUES

OUTCOMES

Kent Waldrep
Workers
Compensation
Case

• Kent Waldrep
• Texas Christian
University
• Texas Employers
Insurance
Association

Waldrep sued for workers
compensation when he was
injured during a football
game while playing for
TCU. He claimed he was an
employee of the university
rather than a student.

The Waldrep case carried on until
1999 when eventually he lost.
However, Waldrep’s case was
able to shed light on the injuries
athletes can suffer and the NCAA
has since adopted better polices
regarding injured players.

Board of
Regents of
Oklahoma v.
NCAA

• University of
Oklahoma
• University of
Georgia
• Members of the
College Football
Association
• NCAA

Members of the CFA sued
the NCAA claiming the
NCAA television contract
violated Antitrust Laws and
operated as a monopoly.

The plaintiffs in the case won in
Federal District Court, the Court
of Appeals, and ultimately the
Supreme Court. The CFA won
their case, and college football
broadcast became more open
allowing institutions to negotiate
with the networks.

White v. NCAA

• Jason White
• Members of the
Class Action
• NCAA

Members of the White class
action sued claiming that
the scholarships they
received from their
institutions based on NCAA
policies were insufficient.

The NCAA settled the lawsuit
without going to court and the
members of the class action were
able to claim the money they had
missed out on with their original
scholarships.

O’Bannon v.
NCAA

• Ed O’Bannon
• Members of the
Class Action
• EA Sports Video
Games
• NCAA

Members of the O’Bannon
class action sued both EA
Sports and the NCAA. They
claimed EA and the NCAA
colluded to illegally use
their likenesses in video
games without their
permission. They also
claimed the NCAA violated
antitrust laws by limiting
student-athletes to
scholarships.

EA Sports settled with the
plaintiffs with a cash settlement
for current and former studentathletes. The NCAA continued
to fight the case eventually losing
in Federal District Court. The
NCAA appealed the decision and
won on appeal. The O’Bannon
plaintiffs asked the Supreme
Court to hear the case but the
Supreme Court refused.

Northwestern
Unionization

• Northwestern
Football Team
• National Labor
Relations Board

Members of the
Northwestern football
team filed for unionization
with the NLRB to receive
better rights for college
student-athletes.

The NLRB denied the
unionization request of the
Northwestern football team.

Jenkins v.
NCAA

•
•
•
•
•

Members of the Jenkins
lawsuit sued the NCAA
claiming that the
scholarships policies are an
unfair practice. They are
asking for a free market
system for paying college
players.

The case is still in the court
system. No resolution has
occurred.

Martin Jenkins
Jonathan Moore
Kevin Perry
William Tyndall
NCAA

114

Chapter Seven: NCAA Reactions and Policy Changes
Changes within the structure of the NCAA do not happen without some sort of external
force. As I mentioned earlier, the member institutions of the NCAA are the ones who propose
on and ultimately approve new policies and legislation. It is fair to say that when these
institutions complain about certain NCAA polies, they are complaining about items they have
voted on in the past.
With the case of pay for play, the NCAA has been adamant in defending its position and
has been reluctant to accommodate the public pressure to allow a compensation structure for its
student-athletes. The NCAA has also been very firm in defending its amateurism model since the
inception of the modern NCAA, which dates to the 1950’s under Walter Byers. What started out
as a way for institutions to compete on the athletic field has, with the interest of many outside
forces, morphed into a billions of dollars per year industry. The NCAA has faced much scrutiny
based on the model by which it continues to operate, and has had to defend itself numerous times
in federal courts to protect this model that many say is outdated. The most recent defense of its
traditions, the O’Bannon v. NCAA case, has added another layer to the intrigue of the battle of
pay for play and has laid the groundwork for cases against the NCAA. Cases such as Jenkins vs.
NCAA, which is currently weaving its way through the court system, have the potential to alter
the current debate about pay for play. However, this study is an historical analysis based on past
court cases involving the NCAA to determine what changes and reforms have occurred within its
policies. The findings below illustrate changes that have occurred within the NCAA based
largely on the court cases, the pay for play argument versus the amateurism model, and the
media outcry and the student-athlete pleas for more compensation The changes fall into several

115

categories including amendments to scholarships and policies, legislative changes made by the
NCAA, and increases in monetary programs developed by the NCAA.
Amendments to Scholarships and Policies
In 1956, the NCAA enacted the grant-in-aid policy for full scholarships for its student
athletes, allowing them to receive a full scholarship at their institution for participating on their
intercollegiate sports teams. This system was set up as a means for institutions to recruit players
to their school and reward them for positively representing the institution on the playing field.
However, the NCAA has changed the grant-in-aid policy numerous times since 1956 to either
enhance or limit the athletic scholarships. For example, until 1975, when it was discontinued,
student-athletes could receive cash for incidental expenses in conjunction with their full grant-inaid athletic scholarship. In this section I will discuss the different programs that have been put
into place within the NCAA scholarship structure since the initial grant-in-aid policy was
adopted. Many of these reforms have occurred after or during the lawsuits that I have
highlighted in this research. These programs include the Student-Athlete Catastrophic Injury
Insurance Program, the Student Assistance Fund (SAF), the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund
(SAOF), the Miscellaneous Expense Account (MEA), and the increase of the Cost of Attendance
(COA) policy.
Student-Athlete Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program. Established in 1988, the
Student-Athlete Catastrophic Injury Program was designed to assist student-athletes who have
been injured participating in an NCAA sport. The program, which is underwritten by Mutual of
Omaha Insurance Company, provides in-home care benefits for those injured athletes
(NCAA.org, 2016). The program is set up to cover a student-athlete with a major injury whose
medical costs are anticipated to exceed $90,000 (NCAA.org, 2016). All NCAA member

116

institutions are automatically enrolled in the program and are not required to file any paperwork,
as their membership within the NCAA guarantees their participation in the program. There is no
requirement for institutions to pay an insurance premium for the program since this is covered by
the NCAA (NCAA.org, 2016). The NCAA states that there are two instances under which an
institution should report a claim to the program through the NCAA. The first would be when a
student-athlete suffers an injury that has resulted or will result in a disability for the studentathlete. The NCAA recommends that serious injuries, such as head or spinal cord injuries, should
be reported within a day of occurrence so that the process can begin for the injured studentathlete (NCAA.org, 2016). The second instance in which an institution should begin the process
of reporting a catastrophic injury is in the event an institution believes that the injury will
possibly exceed the catastrophic injury deductible. The NCAA suggests that institutions who
calculate that the expenses will reach the level necessary for NCAA injury involvement file the
claim so that the proper documentation can be put in place for the injured student-athlete
(NCAA.org, 2016).
Student Assistance Fund. In 1991, the NCAA created this special assistance fund to
assist needy student-athletes with assistance in purchasing much-needed clothing or assisting
with emergency travel or medical costs (Wieberg, 2003). The fund, commonly referred to as the
SAF, or the clothing allowance, was designed to give student-athletes access to funds that were
not restricted in the same manner as athletic scholarships; The demand for the fund and the
money provided within it has grown steadily every year since its inception (see Figure 1)
(Burnsed, 2012). Many student-athletes utilize this money for necessary provisions that they
may not be able to cover through their athletic scholarships. The convenient aspect of the SAF is
that it is not limited to only athletes that may be on a full GIA; rather, it is also available to

117

student-athletes that participate in an equivalency sport where their scholarship offer may be
minimal compared to the full GIA.

118

Figure 1: Growth of Student Assistance Fund

The Student Assistance Fund has grown steadily since its inception and now makes available
more than $66 million annually to tens of thousands of student-athletes to help cover expenses
beyond the reach of scholarships. All figures in chart represent funds budgeted, not
distributed, for a given academic year.
Each year the NCAA sends each conference office its conference’s portion of the SAF
money before the academic year begins. It is then up to the conferences to dole out the money to
the institutions either evenly or based on the need that each institution shows (Burnsed, 2012).
Although the fund was established by the NCAA to assist needy student-athletes, many who
have followed the NCAA feel that the program was established and the amounts increased based
off the revenue the NCAA was generating through television contracts (Wieberg, 2003). This
argument could be directly tied to Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA in the 1980s and even
more so to the rise of the pay for play debate. Each member institution determines how it wants
to utilize the funds for its student-athletes; most institutions require the student-athlete to exhibit
need to be eligible for SAF.
Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund. Much like the SAF program through the NCAA,
the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund (SAOF) is another avenue for student-athletes to receive
payment or reimbursements for educational expenses. The SAOF was set up to provide a direct
benefit to student-athletes who may request it and meet the guidelines set for the program
119

(conferenceusa.com, 2016). The money for the SAOF program is generated in the same manner
as the SAF money, through the NCAA contract with CBS for the March Madness basketball
tournament (Magill, 2011). The NCAA doles out the SAOF money to the athletic conferences,
which split the money amongst their member institutions. The NCAA reports that the SAOF
program is projected to increase in revenue annually by about 13% (Magill, 2011). Each
institution’s Department for Intercollegiate Athletics Compliance is in charge of managing the
fund for its student-athletes to ensure that the money being reimbursed or given to the studentathlete meets the requirements for the program. The Conference USA website (2016) goes on to
describe how the SAOF should be awarded: “Accordingly, receipt of Student-Athlete
Opportunity Fund monies shall not be included in determining the permissible amount of
financial aid that a member institution may award to a student-athlete. Further, inasmuch as the
fund is designed to provide direct benefits to student-athletes, the fund is not intended to replace
existing budget items” (p. 1).
The SAOF program was designed to assist all student-athletes with expenses, whether or
not they are currently on athletic scholarship, have exhausted their athletic eligibility, cannot
compete due to medical reasons, or are an international or domestic student (conferenceusa.com,
2016). The SAOF program was designed to assist student-athletes that have costs that may have
not been anticipated and because of this there is no specific nature for the use of the fund.
Student-athletes are encouraged by their institutions to seek guidance from the intercollegiate
athletic compliance department if their circumstance would qualify. The fund was specifically
established to assist student-athletes and cannot be used by the institution to pay salaries, for
athletic department improvements, stipends, or replace a student-athletes athletic scholarship.
The SAOF can also be used in conjunction with the SAF program for any student-athlete if they

120

have exhibited reasonableness for the program (conferenceusa.com, 2016). The SAOF has been
a useful tool provided by the NCAA for many student-athletes who may utilize the resource to
assist in covering educational cost that their scholarship or other financial aid may not have
covered.
Miscellaneous Expense Account (MEA). In October of 2011, the Division I Board of
Directors adopted a rule that was approved by the NCAA to allow full scholarship Division I
student athletes to receive an additional stipend to assist with other costs that their scholarship
did not cover (NCAA.com, 2012). The stipend, which was allowed to cover up to a studentathlete’s cost of attendance (COA) but not to exceed $2000 per academic year, was enacted to
assist student-athletes with personal and miscellaneous expenses (NCAA.com, 2012). This
stipend became known as the Miscellaneous Expense Account (MEA) and was meant as a means
to provide full scholarship athletes financial assistance to fill the gap between what a full
scholarship could pay, and what an institution’s COA allowed. Until the MEA was adopted, a
full grant-in-aid (GIA) scholarship never actually met what an institution had deemed the full
COA for said institution. By approving the MEA, the NCAA allowed full scholarship studentathletes the financial means to purchase the personal and miscellaneous items that their
institution had allowed within their designated COA.
The case of White vs. NCAA had a major impact on the NCAA making this adjustment
and creating the MEA. In my earlier analysis I reviewed the White vs NCAA case in which the
NCAA reached a settlement with the plaintiffs to ultimately pay out financial awards to the class
covering the same gaps as the MEA would eventually cover. However, the NCAA’s plan for the
MEA was never realized; in December of 2011, the same year it was enacted, the MEA bylaw
was down voted by member institutions of the NCAA and the program was eliminated (Schwarz,

121

2011). Prior to the MEA, and per the NCAA bylaws, schools were not allowed to cover any
travel or living expenses for student-athletes. With the adoption of the MEA the NCAA was
changing its own rules, allowing for institutions to cover these costs; Schwarz (2011) argues that
this allowed the NCAA to be the decision maker on what constituted amateurism and what didn’t
since their previous bylaws strictly prohibited covering these expenses. Essentially the NCAA
capped the athletic scholarship to covering only tuition and fees, room and board, and books,
while the MEA, which wasn’t considered a part of the scholarship, could cover the travel and
living expenses (Schwarz, 2011). Schwarz (2011) contends that the NCAA modeled the MEA
this way so that if it faced an antitrust lawsuit, the NCAA could assert that there was no violation
of the amateurism rule because the GIA was capped below the cost of attendance for every
student-athlete, while the MEA was merely assistance to cover travel and living expenses.
Cost of Attendance Increase. In August of 2014, the NCAA’s Division I Board of
Directors adopted a new governing structure based on NCAA conference membership, the most
significant of which was referred to by the NCAA as the Autonomy Rule. The Autonomy Rule
essentially allowed the strongest, largest, and most financially prosperous conferences, termed
the Power Five, the ability to make rule changes for self-governance that would not apply to the
rest of the NCAA member institutions (NCAA.org, 2014). The rule was a means to give the
Power Five conferences (The Big East Conference, The Atlantic Coast Conference, The Big 12
Conference, The Big Ten Conference, and The Pac 12 Conference) the ability to vote on items
that only their institutions had the financial viability to accomplish. This new rule made sense for
the NCAA – it allows the Power Five to adopt rules for themselves without holding the
institutions not in Power Five to the same standards (NCAA.org, 2014). Prior to this rule, when
the NCAA adopted a policy change, it affected the entire membership, but didn’t always mesh

122

with all NCAA institutions. The NCAA at the time was in the midst of the O’Bannon vs NCAA
lawsuit, and was still making settlement payments to the class from the White vs. NCAA lawsuit.
The first rule that the Power Five adopted utilizing the Autonomy Rule was the Cost of
Attendance increase to full GIA scholarships. Every institution sets their cost of attendance
based on primarily four components: tuition & fees, room & board, books & supplies, and
personal & miscellaneous costs. Prior to the rule change, student-athletes that received a full GIA
scholarship only had costs of tuition and fees, room and board, and books covered. There had
always been a gap in what their cost of attendance was, and what their full GIA covered
(NCAA.org, 2015). Under the new legislation adopted by the Power Five through autonomy,
institutions could cover the fourth component, personal & miscellaneous expenses, with the full
GIA. The increase of the full GIA covering the entire COA was something that athletes had been
pursuing for some time. The White v. NCAA case was based on the gap between the full GIA
and the COA and the NCAA settled that case. With the Power Five adopting this legislation, it
allowed these institutions to address the GIA to COA gap for their student-athletes (NCAA.org,
2015).
In summary, all of these programs have been adopted by the NCAA over the past 25-30
years and run parallel to the growth and popularity of college athletics. It is no surprise that as
the pay for play debate and the questions surrounding the amateurism rule continued to gain
momentum, the NCAA was enacting and adopting polices to quell the debates and arguments.
Amateurism is very much still a part of the NCAA model and will continue to be for the
foreseeable future. But, as the landscape of college athletics changes, so too does the manner in
which the NCAA adapts its model and continues to adopt new legislation to ward off their critics
and to appease the pay for play advocates. These programs haven’t been put in place to replace

123

the amateurism rule, as the NCAA sees it; rather, they have morphed the way amateurism is
interpreted since it was first put in place within the NCAA in the 1950s. The pay to play debate
has only added to this changing environment, forcing the NCAA to alter the way in which it
operates, changing the way amateurism is viewed while maintaining it within college athletics.

124

Chapter Eight: Findings
Without question these cases have changed college athletics in many ways, and the
rulings have had an impact on the way that institutions, their athletic departments, and studentathletes interpret the NCAA rules and regulations. At the beginning of this dissertation I set out
to find answers to these research questions:
1) How has the NCAA evolved during a time of persistent legal encounters due to the
treatment of student-athletes?
2) How have the conditions in college athletics participation changed for student-athletes
based on NCAA policy?
3) How does the debate about pay for play continue to raise questions of intercollegiate
athletics?
In this next section I will show what my research found about the impact of the cases and the
rulings.
Looking Again at Amateurism
My first research question asked: How has the NCAA evolved during a time of persistent
legal encounters due to the treatment of student-athletes? As I have highlighted in my research,
the NCAA has faced legal action against the manner in which the Association controls member
institutions through its policies. In this next section, I will look at how each one of the cases has
impacted collegiate amateurism, and how the rulings have impacted the manner in which the
NCAA has adapted based on the legal battles.
Board of Regents of Oklahoma v. NCAA. This was an important case for the NCAA
and its rule on amateurism for student-athletes due to the precedent that was set in the dissenting
opinion when the case was heard by the Supreme Court. Justice White was adamant in his

125

opinion that amateurism was a valued rule and must remain as a tenet for college athletics in
order for institutions to maintain an educational standard. The case, which had to with the
NCAA’s control over television rights, was lost by the NCAA, but this opinion gave the NCAA
a victory that seemed small at the time. Since this case, the NCAA has used Justice White’s
conviction regarding amateurism in subsequent court battles as the legal guiding principle that
avows the amateurism rule as sacrosanct within college athletics.
The Board of Regents case was a milestone case for college athletics because it gave a
roadmap for how to bring litigation against the NCAA and win. Up until this case the NCAA had
all the control over television rights and, when institutions questioned its authority, the NCAA
threatened them with banishment from the organization. The institutions that made up the
plaintiffs in this case were diligent by first creating the CFA, negotiating television contracts, and
then ultimately suing the NCAA under antitrust abuses when the NCAA threatened them and
demanded they cease all action. This case took years to conclude, as the NCAA filed appeals to
each ruling that went against them, ultimately ending with the Supreme Court siding with the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ victory in this case was monumental for college athletics as it changed
the manner in which television contracts were negotiated. No longer were teams required to wait
for the NCAA to allow them to be televised. Rather, the college football powerhouses could
negotiate their own contracts with the networks, allowing for more games to be televised and for
more exposure for their athletes. This case had an important impact on college athletics because
it showed that the NCAA was vulnerable and that its policies and heavy-handedness were
susceptible to federal laws.
This landmark decision opened an era in which college athletics were more visible in the
media and on television. It gave high school athletes across the nation access to watch more

126

teams and more games, offering exposure to a broader range of institutions as they decided
where they might attend college. The games became more commercialized as advertisers were
able to reach a larger, more diverse audience. The ruling also allowed institutions to negotiate
their own broadcasting contracts, which gave them more television air time and increasing
revenues from the contracts.
White v. NCAA. The White case had an impact on the NCAA amateurism rule and
affected student-athletes despite never going to trial. The case, which became a class action suit,
ended in a settlement that allowed members of the class to recoup monies billed to them despite
their full scholarships (the actual Cost of Attendance) that they weren’t eligible for under the
NCAA policies regulating scholarships. The White case affected the amateurism rule when the
NCAA agreed to settle with the former athletes, admitting that their scholarships should have
covered the entire COA. The “full ride” scholarships at the time covered books, room and board,
and tuition and fees. However, the COA of each institution also had another component
included for personal and miscellaneous costs which wasn’t allowed by the NCAA athletic
scholarship. The money that was recouped by the former athletes was to cover these COA
amounts for which the institutions could directly bill students. The NCAA did not include the
personal and miscellaneous amount in the scholarship amount because it was money that would
go directly to the athlete rather than to a charge by the institution. The amateurism rule did not
allow for student-athletes to be paid, which is how the NCAA saw the personal and
miscellaneous portion of the scholarship. By settling in the White Case, the NCAA was
admitting that the scholarship system may be flawed and the student-athletes on a full athletic
scholarship should have the entire COA covered. The rule would eventually be changed via the

127

Autonomy Rule, when the NCAA allowed the Power Five conferences to have autonomy in rulemaking and those intuitions voted the rule change into legislation.
The White Case settlement had an overall effect on college athletics because it forced the
NCAA to review its policies toward athletic scholarships and to come to the understanding that
the amateurism rule may have some gray area. The White Case also occurred more recently, as
the NCAA has faced intense scrutiny of its policies and many in the media that believe that
college athletes should be paid for their play. This settlement, and ultimately the rule change for
the Power Five conferences, has impacted college athletics by allowing the athletes to have a
stipend for expenditures allowed in the COA, which was not allowed prior to this case due to the
amateurism rule that did not allow for direct payments to student-athletes. Prospective studentathletes can see what amount they might be able to receive in stipend money and include that in
making a college decision. This change in how the amateurism rule is interpreted is a direct
effect of the White v. NCAA case.
Student-athletes have benefitted from the White case in that now they are able to receive
a stipend from their scholarship based on the entire cost of attendance at their institution. This
allows the student-athletes to receive funding to help pay for educational costs beyond books
that, prior to this rule, they were not allowed. The amount has always been a component of the
COA but was not allowed in the scholarship, which has aided student-athletes in paying for costs
outside of university charges.
Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA. The Ed O’Bannon ruling had a major impact on collegiate
amateurism due to the length of the case, the plaintiffs involved, and the era in which it took
place. In finding for the plaintiff in this case, Judge Wilkin wrote that the NCAA should review
its policies as they pertain to amateurism. She felt that the system of college athletics had

128

become so large that the current NCAA policies were outdated and needed to be revised. Much
of what Judge Wilkin wrote could be interpreted as a suggestion for the NCAA to overhaul its
current practices. The Ed O’Bannon case expanded on what the media had been saying for years
– that college student-athletes should be paid for their services. The O’Bannon case challenged
the amateurism rule because it took an argument, pay for play vs. amateurism, and brought it to
the national spotlight in federal court. Many people, writers, and members of the media watched
as the armchair argument of pay for play vs. amateurism started to gain legitimacy due to this
federal trial. Essentially, the entire concept of student-athlete amateurism was on trial in the
O’Bannon case, and the rule itself was in danger of being flipped. The interesting aspect about
the case is that it didn’t start out as a large antitrust, abolish amateurism case. Ed O’Bannon
originally sued EA Sports because he felt it used his image in video games without his consent;
the NCAA was pulled in because he argued that the organization colluded with EA to allow that
to happen. Only after the trial began was it filed as a class action lawsuit, alleging that the
NCAA was restricting the rights of student-athletes. The effect that the O’Bannon case has had
on amateurism has been monumental because it gave credence and legitimacy to an argument
that at the time was mostly media driven – that student-athletes shouldn’t be held to an amateur
status when they are already treated as professionals in many aspects.
College athletics as a whole has been affected by the O’Bannon case, and the NCAA
reviewing its policy was partially due to the case. While the case was proceeding through the
courts, the NCAA approved a legislative move allowing Autonomy for the Power Five
conferences. This move gave the Power Five conferences the ability to make rules that only
apply to their institutions. The first rule the Power Five made was to allow full scholarships to
cover the full cost of attendance. As I highlighted in the review of the White case, this was an

129

important setback to the amateurism rule. And although this rule was something that was argued
for during the White case, it ultimately was changed while the O’Bannon case was still going on,
long after the White case had ended. The effect of this rule has changed the way recruiting
works, as now prospective student-athletes have the ability to see how much stipend money they
may receive from each school, allowing them to weigh their choices based on how much money
they will receive.
The effect that the O’Bannon case has had on student-athletes has also been felt. In
today’s college athletics, student-athletes are receiving more money than they had in the past.
Although it is not directly tied to the O’Bannon case, the COA scholarship rule was influenced
by what was happening in the courtroom. The NCAA seems to be easing its grip on the policies
it so staunchly defended years ago, instead trying to find ways to keep the amateurism rule in
place while at the same time being more helpful and mindful of the student-athlete experience.
The long-term ramifications of the Ed O’Bannon case are yet to be realized since it is still so
fresh, but I expect that there will be changes to NCAA policy where the result can be pointed
back to the Ed O’Bannon case.
These cases have shown that over time the NCAA has adapted it’s polices in a manner to
combat the persistent demand for a pay for play system. The NCAA has evolved it’s approach
toward policy from a system that revolved around absolute control without wavering to one that
is willing to make adjustments when legal issues take precedence.
A New View of Benefits
The second research question of this study: How have the conditions in college athletics
participation changed for student-athletes based on NCAA policy? The conditions for studentathletes who participate in college athletics has changed drastically over the past few decades.

130

Whether directly related to the legal battles it has faced or not, the NCAA has made
improvements to their operational system and have adopted policies that have benefitted the
student-athletes. As I highlighted in my earlier account of NCAA policy changes, many of the
polices that the NCAA has adopted over the years have gone to benefit the student-athletes, from
injury insurance programs, to the Student Assistance Fund and Student-Athlete Opportunity
Fund programs that ensure the athletes have the means to purchase items that normally they
couldn’t. The NCAA has made a concerted effort to adopt policies for better treatment of the
student-athlete. Many of these polices can be attributed to pressure from student-athletes and the
media against the NCAA and the way the athletes are treated. The question remains though, has
the NCAA adopted these policies because they felt the student-athlete should have better
treatment, or have they adopted the policies due to the pressure of the legal battles, and to curb
the pay for play debate hoping the changes will appease their critics.
One of the major policy changes that has made conditions easier for the student-athletes
is the adoption of the cost of attendance rule for full GIA scholarships. This rule, which can be
attributed to the White and O’Bannon lawsuits, is viewed by many as a means of legally paying
student-athletes, but still espousing the concept of amateurism. It does appear that this policy
change is just another mechanism adopted by the NCAA to thwart more lawsuits, and keep the
critics at bay who still believe that student-athletes should receive more compensation. However,
it cannot be ignored that the COA policy does benefit student-athletes by allowing them some
form of compensation to assist with the everyday needs that every college student requires.
Based on the recent history of the NCAA and the endless lawsuits they encounter, it is
not too improbable to think that the lawsuits will persist and that the NCAA will continue to
adapt its operational standards. This is the manner in which the NCAA’s amateurism model has

131

been able to survive despite the constant barrage of attacks it has faced. It is also probable that
the conditions for student-athletes will continue to improve in a manner that makes things easier
for student-athletes as the NCAA reacts to more lawsuits. The NCAA continues to make the
adjustments necessary to improve the overall welfare of the of the student-athlete experience.
Managing Amateurism in Public
The final research question explored is: How does the debate about pay for play continue
to raise questions of intercollegiate athletics? The pay for play debate has been gaining support
as college athletics has grown in popularity and the revenue generated by big-time college
athletics continues to increase. The legal battles the NCAA has faced have only increased the
public perception that student-athletes should be compensated for their performances on the
playing field. The major question that the debate about pay for play represents for amateurism is
completely immersed in the amount of money that is generated through college athletics. The
rule of amateurism strictly prohibits any student-athlete from receiving payment for their
performance on the playing field, and the NCAA has taken a strong approach to punish violators
of this rule, as I have illustrated previously with SMU and UM “death penalty” decisions I
reviewed.
Since the rule of amateurism was adopted by the NCAA in the 1950s, college athletics
has changed in many ways, and the concept of student athlete amateurism has evolved in many
ways as well. When the NCAA adopted the amateurism rule, the idea behind the concept was to
ensure that the student-athletes on campus maintained their focus on their academics first and
their sport second. The amateurism rule was also aimed at maintaining the purity of college
sports as a form of athletics in which money was not involved and the athletes participated for
the love of the sport, their personal development, and their institutions.

132

As the 1960s and 70s passed, technology advanced and the popularity of college athletics
grew due to increased television coverage. The popularity was also driven by the college
football bowl games that occurred at the end of the college football season, and by the NCAA
Men’s Basketball Tournament that occurred at the end of the basketball season. The popularity
of these events, coupled with the ever-growing television coverage, gave rise to the demand for
more. Alumni who had been scattered across the country were now able to watch their alma
mater play on television. As the demand and the popularity for these events grew and the
coverage of these events through television increased, the events expanded, offering more
opportunities for institutions to compete. Each year more and more bowl games were sponsored
by corporations offering more opportunities for institutions to be selected to play; as the NCAA
men’s basketball tournament continued to gain in popularity, the NCAA expanded the
tournament to allow for more teams. Corporations began to take notice and began to sponsor
events, advertising their products to the viewing public. The tremendous television contracts that
have been signed by the NCAA have allowed this to occur. College athletics and the coverage of
these competitions started to become a lucrative avenue for businesses to successfully advertise
their products.
Due to this competition and the increased revenue filtering into the NCAA and its
institutions through endorsements and advertisements, during the decades following the
inception of the amateurism rule, college athletics began to take on a form similar to professional
athletics. Schools are placing a significant emphasis on athletics to the point where many
institutions are defined by their athletic programs which can shape the climate of the institution.
Institutions started putting more focus on their athletic teams to draw more revenue to
themselves and began to more vigorously recruit talented high school players to improve their

133

chances at increasing exposure and potentially earning more in athletic revenues. As the revenue
increased and the exposure for the student-athletes increased their recognition nationally and
then globally, the academics of the student-athlete began to be an afterthought. Recruited high
school athletes became less interested in the educational aspect of their college choice and more
interested in which institution would give them the best chance to make it to the professional
level. Many of these athletes even forgo attending classes because they have already planned to
leave school for the professional ranks. This also led to many athletes leaving college before they
earned their degree in order to pursue the money they could make at the professional ranks.
Despite this change in the college athletics scene, amateurism was and is still being sold by the
NCAA. However, even though amateurism is still a rule within the NCAA and they still hold
student-athletes to the ideal of amateurism, the NCAA has adapted its policies in an effort to
keep amateurism in place and to keep pace with the modern era of big time college athletics –
allowing for the mainstream high exposure of the sports, but also maintaining some intrinsic
educational value and legislative control. Policies such as the COA Rule, and the Autonomy
Rule are perfect examples of how the NCAA has controlled the pay for play and amateurism
debate.
As I highlighted earlier in this study, the many members of the media and current and
former athletes who advocate for a pay for play system point directly at the money generated in
college athletics. Revenues generated by institutions through athletics have reached the millions,
and coach’s salaries and endorsement deals have skyrocketed. As the O’Bannon case showed,
video games use the student-athletes’ likenesses to sell their games and make money. The very
student-athletes, who are the selling point for the broadcasts of these astronomical television
contracts, are the only ones not receiving any monetary benefit from them. All of this is

134

occurring while the athletes are not receiving any compensation further than their cost of
attendance scholarship, which is the basis of amateurism. And although these scholarships are a
monetary benefit, the money generated from all other aspects of college athletics far outweighs
that of a full GIA scholarship. The debate ultimately comes down to how can the NCAA hold
the student-athletes as amateurs and not allow them any compensation when it monetizes every
single other aspect of college athletics? The NCAA skirts the issue by espousing the higher
education aspect and that the student-athletes are really there to earn a degree. Yet the NCAA
and higher education institutions continue to make money off the backs of the student-athletes
with large television and licensing contracts, mega-endorsements, and advertisements.
The pay for play debate has certainly pushed the amateurism model to the point where it
is being questioned in federal court, which also questions the viability of college athletics in the
future. The Jenkins case is the next high profile case that will push the limits of the concept of
student-athlete amateurism and has the potential to have a more significant effect on the NCAA
and its policies than the O’Bannon case. The Jenkins case, as all the cases that have come before,
will contend that student-athletes are being treated as professionals in certain aspects of their
student-athlete life, but are viewed as amateurs through the policies of the NCAA. What is not
being questioned or up for debate is that the amateurism rule will most certainly continue to
come under fire as long as the NCAA remains defiant that the rule must remain in place.

135

Chapter Nine: Personal Reflections
In 1987, while speaking during a convocation at Williams College, then head of Major
League Baseball’s National League and former president of Yale University, Bart Giamatti, said
of college athletics, “'What was allowed to become a circus - college sports, threatens to become
the means by which the public believes the entire enterprise is a sideshow” (New York Times,
1987). At the time Giamatti was referring to what he felt was a college athletics system where
institutions used student-athletes to make money for their services without giving them the
proper education they were promised. Giamatti believed that college scholarships should be
based strictly on financial need and he cautioned that if colleges and universities didn’t reform,
they would lose the respect of academia. Giamatti was partially correct; he was accurate when he
said that college athletics would become the face of many institutions. However, he
miscalculated when he asserted that institutions would lose academic respect if this were to
occur. What Giamatti couldn’t predict at the time was the manner in which college athletics
would grow into a multi-billion dollar industry, penetrating college and academic life and
clouding the line between amateur and professional athletics.
Cultural Significance
In 2014, the estimated worth of the North American sports market was $60.5 billion and
there appears to be no limit in sight (Heitner, 2015). Part of the draw is its simplistic nature,
according to James L. Shulman and William G. Bowen (2011), who write about the simplistic
nature of sports that appeals to much of the public. In The Game of Life: College Sports and
Educational Values, Shulman and Bowen outline why sports fans love sports: “Sports provide us
with escape – heroes and villains, winners and losers, and a clarity that we rarely get when sitting
around thinking about whether it’s the right moment to change jobs” (pg. xxi). College sports

136

have also come to play a significant role in the cultural setting of college campuses and have
taken over certain aspects of campus life. As Shulman and Bowen (2011) write, college sports
provide fans with an escape from their everyday lives. Students on campus are facing critical
decisions and deadlines in their lives, and the break they receive from those stressors is their
college team competing on the field. It gives the students the ability to cheer on their fellow
students alongside friends, alumni, and fans alike and to have that connection and bond with both
the athletes and the others in the crowd. Alumni migrate back to their alma maters for games,
often for more than just homecoming, to be able to access that escape from real life again, to
rejoice with others when their team wins or to agonize when they lose. The sense of belonging
and the sense of connection create a cultural significance and fascination with college athletics.
College athletics exist in a cultural realm that is unlike any other form of athletics.
Nowhere else in the world does a level of athletics exist on par with the college athletics that is
played at postsecondary institutions in the United States. For example, students are often taking
over the streets of their college town, sometimes in joyous celebration after a victory and
sometimes as a mob rioting and looting after a loss, when a game has finished. The draw of
college athletics can be tied to the institutions of higher education they represent and the students
and alumni that identify with their teams. One could say that all sports in the United States,
professional and amateur, bear a cultural significance to their fans but nowhere is it more evident
than on college campuses. The lore of college athletics stems from the students who attend the
institutions and have a claim as being a part of that team. The students who become alumni
continue to feel drawn to their alma mater and the teams that represent it. It is not just a
detached feeling of attending a game and then leaving with no real consequence of whether they
won or lost; rather, college athletics is a connection to your team where every win is a new

137

euphoric high, and every loss stings as if you lost a close friend. This can be especially true for
the students who may attend class or be lab partners with the same athletes that are on the field
for the big games.
There is something to be said about the manner in which college students steadfastly
defend their team, cheering them on with vigor and zeal as if they were a part of the team.
Special student sections for games, like the Izzone at Michigan State University, or the special
events, such as Midnight Madness for basketball (the first allowable time a team can practice
with their coach), are ways in which institutions involve their students in the college sports
scene. It is no surprise that students feel a bond and a connection to these college athletes; they
see them on campus, in the cafeteria, and share classes together. College athletes are a part of the
same campus community that all students share so they aren’t as inaccessible as their
professional counterparts. As Kevin Carey (2014) points out, “for a certain kind of impassioned
sports fan, the contradictions of professional sports are intolerable. The realities of the market
make their necessary illusions impossible to maintain” (p. 1). Carey (2014) goes on to explain
that “Colleges sports are a solution to this problem. Because so-called student-athletes aren’t
paid market salaries, and the franchises can never move, it is much easier for fans to pretend that
everyone involved is motivated by a shared identity and love of the game…Fellow students and
alumni have, in theory, a common quality of membership with the players” (p. 1). They
experience some of the same struggles that the rest of the college population feels as they
manage their way through their busy schedules. This connection stays with the students as they
graduate and move into their careers and become alumni. There is the dedication that alumni feel
for their team as they watch them from afar and harken back to their times as undergrads, their
college team being the connection that allows them to relive their college years vicariously

138

through sport. The cultural significance goes beyond just a game being played between two
universities, but rather to fan bases that feel they have some “skin in the game,” drawing on the
connection to their team and the pride they have for their school.
So why do people care about college athletics, and why is my research significant to
numerous writers and fans alike? Much of it can be attributed to belonging to a group and
identifying with that group as being a part of something. Tajfel (1978) wrote about Social
Identity Theory, relating to in-groups and out-groups to which people attach in order to be
associated with a social group. People gain self-esteem by associating with a group that they
deem as positive, for example their college athletic teams. People feel a connection to their
college team and it gives them a sense of belonging to something. Tajfel (1978) explained social
identity as, “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership” (p. 63). Many people are attached to their college athletics teams as
part of being with a social group, lending cultural significance to the popularity of college
athletics. Tajfel (1978) also indicated that people who associate themselves with certain groups
get a feeling of self-worth and a positive self-image from being attached to the group. Fans of
college athletics is a great example of Social Identity Theory because of the way they interact
with fans from other teams. Social Identity Theory simply translates to the “us versus them”
mentality that arises during rival games. Fans of one team despise the fans from a rival team for
no other reason than the fact that they are fans of an opposing group. Tajfel (1978) states that
people gain self-image by associating with their in-group, such as a college team. They also
discriminate against other groups, the out-groups, because they are fans of opposing teams.

139

The significant role that college athletics plays and the cultural impact that college
athletics has in everyday fans cannot be denied. Shulman and Bowen (2011) wrote that
simplicity of the sports was a way for people to find a belonging. It ties directly with the Social
Identity Theory of belonging to a group and finding a connection with others as part of the in
group. Fans are able to identify with other fans of the same group as having a place within that
group. The social integration of the group carries a cultural aspect as fans place a great deal of
importance on their college athletic teams.
Studying the pay for play argument is important not only for the financial and academic
impact it would have on college athletics and the universities, but also for the cultural
ramifications it could have on the sports and the culture of the institutions as well. This is why
the debate over pay for play is such a popular topic in today’s mainstream media and around
college campuses. People are genuinely interested in this debate because it could possibly change
the manner in which college athletics operate. The importance that students, alumni, and fans
place on their college sports teams and the way they identify with those teams has elevated this
debate to a substantial chapter in the history of college athletics in the United States.
Reflections
As a professional working in financial and athletics with a major Division I institution for
the past several years, I have worked with the NCAA and intercollegiate athletic departments
very closely. I have been at the forefront, as a decision maker, in the position to interpret and
administer several of the NCAA’s rules changes as they apply to student-athletes. I have seen
first-hand how cases such as O’Bannon vs. NCAA have affected college athletes; I have had a
role in adopting NCAA policy changes based on the cases and applying them to my institution
and our policies in order to maintain compliance with the NCAA.

140

The Board of Regents of Oklahoma vs NCAA case played a key role by cementing the
amateurism rule for the NCAA through the dissenting opinion which strongly supported the
definition of the concept. The NCAA has utilized this opinion as the basis for defending
amateurism in almost every court case since. Although this case has been used as the cornerstone
of the NCAA’s defense of amateurism in college athletics, it also created the roadmap for others
looking to bring litigation against the NCAA. The roadmap to which I refer is how to use the
Sherman Antitrust Act as a basis to sue the NCAA. The Regents case proved that the NCAA
was vulnerable to antitrust litigation and it became the manner in which others sued the NCAA.
In my opinion, what this case exposed about the NCAA was its overreaching in all aspects of
college athletics and its desire to control not just its member institutions, but the student-athletes
that represent those institutions as well. It was obvious to the judges in both the circuit court and
the court of appeals that the NCAA television plan was operated as a cartel and that the NCAA
fixed prices. Even the dissenters in the Supreme Court case felt that the NCAA was operating in
a controlling manner with the television plan, but felt that it was doing so to protect amateurism,
which is why they defended the NCAA and spoke out in strong support of amateurism.
Another reason that the Board of Regents of Oklahoma vs. NCAA case is important, and
why it plays a role in today’s debate regarding pay for play, is the argument it made regarding
the revenue generated through television contracts for intercollegiate athletics. This argument
has expanded to other revenue generating areas of intercollegiate athletics such as ticket sales
and merchandising. The case essentially became an argument for pay for play within college
athletics. However, it did not support a pay for play system for the student-athletes, but rather a
system that would allow institutions more control over their television negotiating, which would
result in more revenues for the institutions themselves. This case set a precedent by showing the

141

growing popularity of college athletics and the unlimited potential for generating revenue at the
institutional level. The genesis of the Regents case was the control the NCAA exerted over the
revenue streams of the institutions. The current debate over pay for play is that student-athletes
should be compensated because they are generating the revenue for the institutions and the
NCAA. The debate has migrated from the institutions seeking more control to the student
athletes wanting to have more control. A perfect example of student-athletes proactively working
to gain more control is the business of the National College Players Association. This association
is dedicated to assisting student-athlete welfare in all aspects of their athletic and academic
experiences.
The Jason White case was, in my opinion, the reason the NCAA ultimately adopted the
autonomy rule, which led to the Power Five conferences creating rules for their own members.
The first rule the Power Five adopted for their member institutions was the COA rule. This rule
allowed the member institutions to increase full GIA scholarships to cover the full cost of room
and board, and books, which wasn’t the full COA. The Jason White case was filed several years
prior to this rule change and this gap in funding was exactly the reason the plaintiffs in the class
action were suing. It is evident that the NCAA knew the disparity between the full GIA
scholarship and the COA was going to become a larger problem if it was not addressed
immediately.
I believe that the reason the NCAA settled the Jason White case was because the full GIA
scholarship system was imperfect and an easy target for antitrust lawsuits. It wasn’t long after the
settlement of that case that the NCAA enacted the MEA to help full GIA student-athletes cover
the COA. However, the MEA program not thoroughly thought through by the NCAA, as it was
also flawed, and was overruled shortly after it was enacted. While the NCAA was still paying the

142

settlement for the White case, the National College Players Association (NCPA) released its
report in 2011, showing that student-athletes received scholarships that kept them at or below the
poverty level. In my opinion, at the time the NCAA was trying to figure out a manner in which
to cover the COA for student-athletes without impacting its idealistic vision of amateurism; the
NCPA report was released and the NCAA was blindsided, so the MEA was instituted the
following academic year without the necessary planning involved. A sweeping legislative change
like the MEA may seem like a good idea, but not all NCAA member institutions had the
financial ability to implement the MEA. They quickly organized resistance to combat the
legislation, which was eventually overruled, and the NCAA was forced to abandon the MEA.
Another side effect of the Jason White lawsuit was the Autonomy Rule, which was
directly influenced by the failure of the MEA. The NCAA had been feeling pressure from the
Power Five conferences to allow them the ability to adopt rules that only applied to them.
Ultimately the NCAA relented, deciding that it did make sense to allow the Power Five
conferences to vote on legislation dedicated to only those institutions due to the disparity of size
and funding levels in which they operated. In August of 2014, a vote regarding an autonomy rule
for the Power Five conferences passed by a large margin. By allowing the adoption of the
Autonomy Rule, the NCAA took the necessary steps to reevaluate its organization and the
differing demographics of its member institutions. The NCAA understood that the institutions
that could make the MEA program work were also a part of the strongest Division I conferences
and, ultimately, had the vote to allow autonomy.
I believe that the Autonomy Rule, which led to the passage of legislation to allow full
GIA scholarships to meet a student-athlete’s full COA, was a direct result of the Jason White
case. The Jason White settlement set a precedent, which forced the NCAA to address the gap

143

between the full GIA and the full COA and, ultimately, the passing of the Autonomy Rule.
However, in my opinion, the Autonomy Rule leaves the door open for grander changes for the
Power Five conferences that could have a much larger impact on the landscape of big time
college athletics.
The O’Bannon vs. NCAA lawsuit was another case that challenged the NCAA through the
use of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This case was different from the Jason White case, however,
in that it also sued Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) for the unlawful use of student-athletes’ names,
images, and likenesses. There were several things that stood out from the beginning that garnered
this case a considerable amount of media attention. First, the main plaintiff in the case, Ed
O’Bannon, wasn’t just another former athlete who had moderate success playing college
athletics. O’Bannon was a highly recognized figure in the world of college basketball, helping
UCLA win the 1995 NCAA National Basketball title. During his senior year of college, he won
the college basketball player of the year award and, he was voted most outstanding player of the
national championship tournament. He was a high profile ex-college athlete pursuing legal action
against the NCAA, which assisted in the media coverage of the case. Second, he wasn’t just
suing the NCAA for antitrust violations, O’Bannon was also suing EA for using his likeness.
Hence, this was a two-pronged lawsuit by a former athlete. Finally, Sonny Vaccaro, a shoe
representative that made his name by helping shoe companies sign big-time contracts with
athletes, was the initial driving force behind the lawsuit.
In my opinion, the O’Bannon plaintiffs had a strong case with their arguments against EA
Sports and collusion between the NCAA and EA; however, the facts of the case showed that the
antitrust portion of the case against the NCAA was not as strong. This is why, I believe, that
even though O’Bannon and the other plaintiffs won in District court, the decision was overturned

144

by the appeals court, and was ultimately denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. In my opinion,
the NCAA had a strong defense for their case, which was made even stronger once EA Sports
settled with the plaintiffs.
I believe the O’Bannon case did more to drive the pay for play debate than any other
prior case. The media seemed to connect with the student-athletes’ plight with the O’Bannon
case even more so than prior to the case, and the massive amount of coverage it received only
seemed to strengthen the pay for play argument. Due to this, the O’Bannon case became more
important to bolstering the pay for play argument in the court of public opinion than it was in a
court of law. The case began in 2009 and didn’t conclude until late 2015; during that time media
outlets across the country argued both sides, bringing the debate of pay for play to a much
broader audience than prior to the case. This case only strengthened the pay for play advocates in
their argument for a system in college athletics that rewards the athletes monetarily beyond their
athletic scholarship.
Another pertinent case to this investigation is Jenkins vs NCAA, which is still in the
preliminary stages of the court system. As of yet, there hasn’t been much to report on and the
case does not seem close to a resolution at this time. However, from the reports that do exist, it
appears this case has a chance to change the landscape of the pay for play debate. The plaintiffs
in the case are looking to create an open market system for college athletes when it comes to the
pay for play debate. That is, the plaintiffs in this case are arguing for a system in college athletics
that operates similar to professional sports; one where the athletes are paid based on their
performance in their sport for their institution. It is uncertain at this point how this lawsuit will be
resolved and whether it will end up having the widespread ramifications on college athletics that
some are speculating. While I believe that it will have an effect on college athletics, I do not

145

believe it will disrupt the system from the current state of college athletics. I predict, based on
the facts as presented, that the case will lead to some concessions by the NCAA in the area of
more benefits for the athletes, and lessened regulation by the NCAA, and may lead to more
reform in scholarships for college student-athletes, but it will not greatly change the system. The
NCAA has been very adept at adapting its policies and creating new legislation to appease the
courts and the plaintiffs in lawsuits, while still allowing the maintenance of its amateurism
model. I believe this will be the result of the Jenkins case.
The one piece of legislation that does appear to have the ability to change the current
college athletics system is the NCAA’s Autonomy Rule from 2014. I think the future will bring
an expansion in rules by the Power Five conferences as they experiment with new rules that
benefit their athletes, and that the NCAA won’t have to force onto its non-power conferences.
This rule will allow the Power Five conferences to change the shape of college athletics by their
own rules-making authority and that these rules will shift how the NCAA does business vs. the
NCAA imposing its will on smaller conferences. Despite the Autonomy Rule, the NCAA still
controls the Power Five institutions in many regards, and the Power Five must abide by the
guidelines set by the NCAA. But, they will also expand on their abilities to do things other
smaller (less powerful?) conferences cannot. The Autonomy Rule gives those conferences the
ability to make changes that they determine would improve their system. As the revenue in the
Power Five Conferences grows and the competition becomes greater than ever, pay for play will
unequivocally take on a larger meaning. While there will still be some aspect of the amateurism
model in place in the future and college athletics will not evolve into an open market system, I
think that the demand to pay high profile recruits will continue to grow until the Power Five
decides that is the manner in which they need to focus their resources.

146

The NCAA has a long and deep history of regulation and defending its regulations. In the
court battles that I have reported in this research the NCAA has defended its position on many
levels and stands strongly behind its amateurism model. As the landscape of college sports has
changed and the popularity of college athletics as grown, so has the interest in the manner in
which the NCAA operates. In recent times the NCAA has found its business practices
scrutinized on a microscopic level; however, that scrutiny cannot be questioned when the amount
of revenue the NCAA yields totals in the billions. It does, after all, beg the question about
whether college athletes should be treated as professionals (or employees?) when everything they
are surrounded by treats and assumes them as professional except for the national organization
that controls them.
I think that the NCAA is a money hungry organization determined to capitalize on
college athletics in every possible way, and monetizing every aspect of college athletics and the
student-athletes it represents. The manner in which they do this is to hide behind the veil of
amateurism claiming that student-athletes shouldn’t be paid for their services because they are
students first and therefore not professional. The concept appears questionable to almost
everyone outside the NCAA and the institutions athletic departments. College athletics is a
multi-billion dollar industry, and the college athletic departments are raking in the money while
student-athletes cannot receive any of it per the NCAA rules. When, asked every institution will
say that they are operating just at their means and couldn’t possibly pay the players. However,
how can so many institutions build bigger and better athletic facilities, yet claim they are
operating at their means?
Perhaps if institutions took more of a philanthropic approach when allocating their
athletics based earnings, they wouldn’t be the target of the critics who suggest they pay the

147

student-athletes. Instead of building a new athletic facility, or increasing the head coach’s salary
another million, it might be good to donate that money to the university to be used for
educational purposes. When researching the highest paid employee in each state, in almost every
case will reveal that it is the head coach of football or basketball at a Division I university.
College coaching salaries are reaching astronomical levels, and the NCAA and the institutions
paying the coaches appear to be unconcerned when we hear about student-athletes going hungry.
As we heard when Shabazz Napier brought the problem to everyone’s attention in 2014. He
wasn’t complaining about not being able to eat, he was trying to shed light on a system that is
flawed. His coach could go back to his well apportioned house after practice while he has to
figure out how he is going to eat.
To an outside observer it would seem obvious that the NCAA and its member
institutions are partners in an unfair agreement where they keep the money, tell the studentathlete that they are getting a free education, and then supply them with insufficient financial
support to earn it. However I also don’t believe that colleges are populated with evil people that
are trying to figure out every avenue of how to take advantage of student-athletes. They are
professionals who generally do care about student-athletes and want to see them succeed in their
studies. However, so much emphasis is placed on winning that it is hard for the student-athlete to
determine which is more important: athletics or academics. It is also very hard for wellintentioned athletic administrators to assist student-athletes academically when the
organizational polices set forth by the NCAA only perpetuate a system where student-athletes
academic success is stymied.
I believe that the NCAA is a powerful organization that exploits its student-athletes. Why
else does the NCAA find itself trying to defend its policies in federal courts repeatedly? It’s not

148

because they have bad luck, it’s because they have bad policies that have been challenged in
court and found to violate federal law. And I don’t believe institutions when they spout that they
cannot have a pay for play system because most institutions are in the red. I believe the money is
available for a pay for play system in college athletics, but also I don’t think a pay for play
system could last very long without the separation of athletics from the academic side of
institutions.
I don’t feel that a pay for play system in college athletics would work. In fact, I believe
that if pay for play were adopted, even on a small scale to start, that it would eventually become
too large and would end college athletics as we currently know it. Below is the reasoning behind
my view.
The revenue generating sports at most Division I institutions are limited to two: football
and men’s basketball. If a pay for play system were to be adopted, those two sports would be the
ones that would spend the most to get the best players. It would lead to a recruiting arms race
where institutions outbid each other to attract the best high school football and basketball
players. Eventually the athletic departments will stop spending money to field teams for their
non-revenue generating sports. At most institutions the money made from the revenue generating
sports (football and basketball) is used to sustain the non-revenue generating sports. With a
recruitment arms race, athletic departments will spend the money not on non-revenue sports, but
rather the best high school players for football and basketball. The non-revenue sports will cease
to exist. Of course this is based on an extreme scenario, but it could happen if the NCAA adopts
a policy for it in the same way they adopted the COA policy, which is to not make it a uniform
amount allowing institutions to adjust their policies in order to abuse the NCAA policy while
still adhering to it.

149

What gets lost in a college athletics pay for play system is ultimately the original purpose
for a student to go to college: to earn a degree. Some would say that academics left the picture a
long time ago for student-athletes. At least it has for those high profile athletes who “attend”
college for one year, and do just enough to stay eligible, before leaving for the professional
leagues. True enough some athletes come back to try and finish their education years later when
their professional careers are over, and finally understand how important it is to earn that free
education. I do, however, feel strongly that with a pay for play system, eventually academics will
come to exist hardly at all for athletes that are paid. There will still be club teams where students
will pay their own way for their education while competing through intramurals, but there will
also be the professional teams of the institutions where the athletes are paid to represent the
university and not required to have an educational component attached to their contract. This is
the way the Jenkins Case is headed. Jeffery Kessler, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs wants
a free market system for college athletics, and if it happens, the above scenario could be realized.
I don’t honestly think this will happen though. There is too much integrity built into our
institutions of higher education to allow for athletic corruption.
The court battles in this historical analysis stand behind the debate on pay for play vs.
amateurism, a debate that mostly rages on in the mainstream media, on college campuses and
among the fans of college athletics. Although college athletics hasn’t reached a definitive model
of pay for play, and possibly never will, the court battles that have occurred over the years for the
NCAA have affected the way it perceives and administers its amateurism model. I do not believe
the amateurism rule within the NCAA is going to be eliminated, but will continue to grow and
morph as college athletics continues to grow and morph, paradoxically maintaining the status
quo it has had in place since the early 1950’s; and transforming itself based on the current

150

climate of college athletics. The result of the current pay for play debate has only forced the
NCAA to adapt the manner in which it utilizes and administers the amateurism rule, but has not
changed the amateurism rule itself. It is however reasonable to conclude that, the pay for play
debate will continue, the NCAA will continue to be challenged in court due to its policy on
amateurism, and the rule will remain, intact and unchanged. The end result will be that the
NCAA will continue to adjust the way amateurism is viewed and enforced, as it has for the last
60 years, but will not change the overall model of college athletics.

151

APPENDIX

152

Glossary of Terms
Antitrust – Federal and State laws that regulate organizations and businesses to ensure
fair competition.
Athletic Scholarship – A scholarship awarded to a student to play a sport at an
institution.
Autonomy Rule – A rule adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association
allowing its largest and wealthiest athletic conferences to vote on and adopt legislation that only
affects the institutions that are members of those conferences.
Cartel – An agreement between competitors to control prices and restrict competition.
Class Action – A lawsuit where a party, or a group of individuals, is represented in said
lawsuit by one member of that group.
Class Counsel – A law firm or lawyer that is the legal representation for the plaintiffs in
a class action lawsuit.
Class members – All the members on the plaintiff’s side of a class action lawsuit
College Football Association – A group formed in 1977 of Colleges and Universities
that were members of the NCAA, in order to negotiate contracts with television networks to
televise football games.
Competitive Balance – A situation where no one team or institutions competing against
each other has an unfair advantage.

153

Cost of Attendance – The cost that individual colleges and universities set for their
institutions each year that determine the amount it will cost a student to attend. The amount is
based on tuition, fees, room, board, books, personal supplies, and miscellaneous expenses.
Death Penalty – The harshest penalty that the NCAA can inflict on a member institution
for rules violations. The penalties can vary based on the infractions of the violating school, that
will most likely have major ramifications such as cancelling an entire playing season for the
offending sport.
Division I – The highest level of intercollegiate athletics sanctioned by the NCAA. The
differences between Divisions in college athletics is based on the number of sports and teams
that each institution must carry. For example, Division I schools are required to have at least 7
men and 7 women’s teams.
Electronic Arts – An American video game company that specializes in sports games.
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) – The most competitive subdivision of the NCAA
Division I college football which consists of the largest and most competitive schools in the
NCAA.
Final Four – The moniker given to the four teams that advance to the final weekend of
the annual single elimination NCAA Basketball Tournament
Financial Aid – Funding that is available to students that are attending a post-secondary
educational institution in the United States.
Grant-In-Aid Scholarship (GIA) – A scholarship awarded by institutions to its studentathletes, based on rules set by the NCAA, that cover a student-athletes cost of attendance.

154

Horizontal Restraint - Collusion among competitors or distributors at the same level of
production or distribution to directly depress, fix, raise, or stabilize prices in order to control the
supply of goods or services.
March Madness – The nickname given to the annual NCAA Men’s Basketball
tournament. The tournament takes place every March.
NCAA Member Institutions – Colleges and Universities that are members of the
NCAA.
Miscellaneous Expense Account (MEA) – A account set up by the NCAA to assist
student-athletes in paying for expenses that weren’t covered by their GIA scholarship.
Monopoly – A market structure where only one supplier exists controlling most of the
market.
National Letter of Intent (NLI) – An NCAA document that a student-athlete signs for a
college or university indicating their intent to attend that university.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) – A non-profit association that acts
as the governing body for college athletics.
NCAA’s Amateurism Rule – The rule set forth by the NCAA that set the parameters on
college athletes preventing them from competing at a professional level or receiving benefits not
allowed by the NCAA.
NIL – The acronym give to the phrase “Names, Images, and Likenesses” during the
O’Bannon vs. NCAA trial.

155

National Opinion Research Center (NORC) – An organization at the University of
Chicago that conducts social research projects. The NCAA utilized NORC survey data to
analyze television college sports broadcast.
Pay for Play – The concept of paying college athletes for their participation in college
athletics. The NCAA amateurism rule prohibits this practice.
Power Five Conferences – The five largest and wealthiest conferences in the NCAA
Division I. The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), The Big Ten Conference, The Big 12
Conference, The Southeastern Conference (SEC), and the PAC 12 Conference.
Price Fixing – An agreement between two competitors to maintain prices at a certain
level.
Restraint of Trade – A contract between a buyer and a seller that interferes with fair
trade and free competition in a market.
Sanity Code – An NCAA regulation adopted in 1948 that became the first form of
athletic scholarships that institutions could award.
Sherman Antitrust Trust Act – A federal law that was passed in 1890 that prohibited
anti-competitive behavior, including illegal trusts, from companies. This law allowed the federal
government to investigate and pursue action.
Student Assistance Fund – A fund established by the NCAA to assist student-athletes
with educational expenses not covered by their athletic scholarship.

156

Student athlete Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program – An insurance program
adopted by the NCAA to assist student-athletes with medical costs incurred from an injury they
sustained while participating in college athletics.
Student Athlete Opportunity Fund- A fund established by the NCAA to assist studentathletes with educational expenses not covered by their athletic scholarship.
Student-Athlete – Any student that participates in college athletics representing their
institution at the varsity level of competition.

157

REFERENCES

158

REFERENCES

Acain, M. P. (1997). Revenue sharing: A simple cure for the exploitation of college athletes.
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 18(307).
Baker, T. A., Maxcy III, J. G., & Thomas, C. (2011). White v. NCAA: A chink in the antitrust
armor. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 21(1), 75-99.
Baran, P. (2012, December 16). O’Bannon v NCAA: potential financial consequences of a
Student-athlete trust fund. Winthrop. Retrieved from Winthrop database.
Barrett, P. M. (2014, August 21). The insurgents who could bring down the NCAA. Bloomberg
Business.
Bass, J. R., Schaeperkoetter, C. C., & Bunds, K. S. (2015). The “front porch”: Examining the
increasing interconnection of university and athletic department funding. AEHE, 41(5).
John Wiley & Sons.
Bates, C. G., & DeLoca, P. J. (2015). A surviving ideology. In S. A. Riess (Ed.), Sports in
America from colonial times to the twenty-first century: An encyclopedia
(pp. 93-94). New York: Routledge.
Baumbach, J. (2014, October 4). Special report: College football coaches' salaries and perks are
soaring. Retrieved from http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbscollege-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report1.9461669
Baumgardner, N. (2013, May 8). Ed Martin scandal disassociation ends for Chris Webber; a look
back at the timeline. Retrieved from
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2013/05/ed_martin_scandal_disassociati.htm
l
Benford, R. D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the “edutainment”
industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 1-28.
Bennett, B. (2014, March 27). Northwestern players get union vote. Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-footballplayers-win-bid-unionize
Berkowitz, S. (2015, January 17). NCAA increases value of scholarships in historic vote. USA
Today, Sports.

159

Berkowitz, S. (2016, May 13). NCAA asks Supreme Court to hear O'Bannon antitrust case.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/13/ncaa-askssupreme-court-hear-obannon-antitrust-case/84341682/
Board of Regents of The University of Oklahoma v. NCAA (United States Court of Appeals,
10th Circuit May 12, 1983).
Board of Regents of The University of Oklahoma v. NCAA (United States District Court, W. D.
Oklahoma September 15, 1982).
Board of Regents of The University of Oklahoma v. NCAA, 707 S. Ct. 98 (1984).
Board reaffirms support for allowance: Group to bring issue to presidents in April for further
discussion. (2012, January 15). Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-01-15/board-reaffirms-support-allowance
Brutlag-Hosick, M. (2014, August 7). Board adopts new Division I structure. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/mediacenter/News/board-adopts-new-division-istructure
Branch, T. (2011, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic, 2. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/1/
Branch, T. (2014, February 20). How the myth of the NCAA "student-athlete" was born.
Retrieved from http://deadspin.com/how-the-myth-of-the-ncaa-student-athlete-was-born1524282374
Brown, J. K. (1995). Compensation for the student-athlete: Preservation of amateurism.
Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 5(147).
Burnsed, B. (2012, August 22). Meeting the needs of student-athletes: NCAA provides $53
million directly to 81,000 players in need. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-08-20/meeting-needs-student-athletes
Byers, W., & Hammer, C. (1997). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Carey, K. (2014, May 19). College Sports, Enriched by Loyal Tribes of Suckers.
Retrieved July 24, 2017, from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/College-Sports-Enriched-by/146639
CBS Sports, Turner Broadcasting, NCAA reach 14-Year agreement. (2010, April 22). Retrieved
from http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2010-04-21/cbs-sports-turnerbroadcasting-ncaa-reach-14-year-agreement

160

Chin, C. L. (1992). Illegal procedures: The NCAA's unlawful restraint of the student-athlete.
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 26(1213).
Conferenceusa.com/sports/2016/7/1/compliance-c-usa-compliance-html.aspx. (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://conferenceusa.com/sports/2016/7/1/compliance-c-usa-compliance-html.aspx
Cost of attendance Q&A. (2015, September 3). Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-09-03/cost-attendance-qa
Cubbage, A. K. (2014, April 9). Northwestern asks national labor relations board to overturn
regional director's ruling on football players' unionization. Retrieved from
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/04/northwestern-asks-nlrb-tooverturn-ruling-on-football-players-unionization.html
Drape, J. (1997, October 15). COLLEGE FOOTBALL: A question of responsibility; injured
player's case could shake up N.C.A.A. New York Times, Sports.
Davis, S. (2011, September 21) Should College athletes be paid? Why, they already are.
Retrieved from
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/09/21/Branch.rebuttal/index.html
Dodds, E. (2015, February 25). The 'death penalty' and how the college sports conversation has
changed. Retrieved from http://time.com/3720498/ncaa-smu-death-penalty/
Dorfman, J. (2013, August 29). Pay college athletes? They're already paid up to $125,000 per
year. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/29/paycollege-athletes-theyre-already-paid-up-to-125000year/
Ed O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 09 U.S. 1 (9th Cir. 2014)
Edelman, M. (2014, January 6). The case for paying college athletes. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/06/ncaa-college-athletes-should-bepaid
Edelman, M. (2014). The District Court decision in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association: A small step forward for college-athlete rights, and a gateway for far
grander change. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72, pp. 2319-2364.
Edelman, M. (2016, October 7). By denying certiorari in O'Bannon v. NCAA, the Supreme
Court aids future reform to college sports. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2016/10/07/by-denying-certiorari-in-obannonv-ncaa-the-supreme-court-aids-future-reform-to-college-sports/#4ee8b90e4e86
Eder, S., & Bishop, G. (2013, November 24). Under pressure, NCAA weighs momentous
changes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/
sports/under-pressure-ncaa-weighs-momentous-changes.html?_r=0

161

Eder, S., & Strauss, B. (2014, June 9). Understanding Ed O’Bannon’s suit against the N.C.A.A.
The New York Times, Sports.
Electronic Arts. (2015, May 05). Electronic Arts Reports Q4 FY15 and Full Year FY15
Financial Results [Press release]. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=910982
Elfman, L. (2008, August 8). NCAA to provide former student-athletes with benefits. Diverse
Issues in Higher Education.
Elias, P. (2011, February 13). Former NCAA player’s suit threatens Hollywood. Retrieved from
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=txncaalawsuits
Esterbrook, J. (2002, March 21). Booster busted for paying players. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/booster-busted-for-paying-players/
Farrey, T. (2014, May 31). Players, game makers settle for $40M. Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11010455/college-athletes-reach-40-millionsettlement-ea-sports-ncaa-licensing-arm
Former TCU player loses court battle. (2000, June 16). Amarillo Globe-News, p. 1
Funk, D. (n.d.). SMU receives death penalty in 1987. Retrieved from
http://allfunkedup.sportsblog.com/posts/1960538/smu-receives-death-penalty-in1987.html
Gaines, C. (2014, September 11). The 20 colleges that make the most money on sports.
Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-revenue-college-sports-2014-9
Garcia, M. (2010, February 9). Judge approves ex-UCLA star Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against
NCAA. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-02-08judge-approves-ncaa-suit_N.htm?csp=usat.me
Gaul, G. M. (2015). Billion dollar ball: A journey through the big-money culture of college
football. New York: Penguin Random House.
Goldman, L. (1989). Sports and antitrust: Should college students be paid to play. Notre Dame
Law Review, 65(206).
Goplerud III, C. P. (1997). Pay for play for college athletes: Now, more than ever.
South Texas Law Review, 38(1081).
Gullo, K. (2011, July 28). Electronic Arts must face ex-athletes’ antitrust claims. Retrieved from
http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20110728fbc&_t=Electronic Arts
Must Face ExAthletesrsquo Antitrust Claims 2#.WKcQm28rL0N

162

Haden, C. W. (2001). Foul-the expolitation of the student-athlete: Student-athletes deserve
compensation for their play in the college athletic arena. Journal of Law &
Education, 30(673).
Hagy, A. (2003, February 23). Webber's world. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/magazine/webber-s-world.html
Hakim, D. (2002, November 8). BASKETBALL: Michigan punishes basketball program.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/08/sports/basketball-michiganpunishes-basketball-program.html
Hawes, K. (2000, January 3). Debate on amateurism has evolved over time. Retrieved from
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2000/associationwide/debate+on+amateurism+has+evolved+over+time+-+1-3-00.html
Heitner, D. (2013, September 12). R.I.P. NCAA amateurism: The student-athlete is dead.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/09/12/r-i-p-ncaaamateurism-the-student-athlete-is-dead/
Heitner, D. (2015, Oct. 19). Sports industry to reach $73.5 biillion by 2019. Forbes.
History of Michigan men's basketball infractions case. (2013, May). Retrieved from
http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/050803aab.html
Hruby, P. (2014, August 28). The end of amateurism is not the end of competitive college sports.
Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/the-end-ofamateurism-not-the-end-of-college-sports/379200/
http://www.ncaa.org/ [Fact sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/
Huma, R, & Staurowsky, E. J. (2011, September). The price of poverty in big time college
athletics. Retrieved from http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024
Increase in student-athlete insurance coverage for catastrophic injuries. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safety/policy/increase-student-athlete-insurancecoverage-catastrophic-injuries
Johnson, G. (2014, April 9). The NCAA makes billions and student athletes get none of it.
Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/ncaa-makes-billions-and-studentathletes-get-none-it/
Kahn, L M. (2007, Winter). Cartel behavior and amateurism in college sports. Journal of
Economic Perspective, 21(1), 20-226.
Kindred, D. (1999, Mar 22). The madness of college athletics. The Sporting News, 223(12), 71.

163

Lazaroff, D. E. (2007). NCAA in its second century: Defender of amateurism or antitrust
Recidivist. Oregon Law Review, 86(329).
Lederman, D. (2008, February 4). Settlement raises questions for NCAA. Inside Higher Ed.,
News & opinions.
Magill, M. (2011, December). NCAA/Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund. Retrieved from
http://aforathlete.wikia.com/wiki/NCAA/Student-Athlete_Opportunity_Fund
Makuch, E. (2015, July 17). EA Sports NCAA video game lawsuit settlement rises to $60
million. Retrieved from http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-sports-ncaa-video-gamelawsuit-settlement-rises/1100-6428972/
March money madness: CBS Sports to spend $6 billion over 11 years for basketball tourney.
(1999, November 18). Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/18/news/ncaa/
McCann, M. (2015, September 30). What the appeals court ruling means for O'Bannon's ongoing
NCAA lawsuit. Retrieved from http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/09/30/edobannon-ncaa-lawsuit-appeals-court-ruling
McCormick, R. & McCormick, A. (2006, February). The myth of the student-athlete: The
college athlete as employee. Washington Law Review, 81(1), 71-157.
McFarlane, G. (2012, August 10). NCAA sports programs that were given the death penalty.
Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/ncaa-sports-programsthat-were-given-the-death-penalty.aspx
Miller, C. (2014, September 17). A timeline of events from this summer’s O’Bannon case.
The Stanford Daily, Sports.
Mitten, M. J. (2000). Applying antitrust law to NCAA regulation of "big time" college athletics:
The need to shift from nostalgic 19th and 20th century ideals of amateurism to the
economic realities of the 21st century. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1).
Mondello, M. J., & Beckham, J. (2002). Workers' compensation and collegiate athletes: The
debate over the pay for play model: A counterpoint. Journal of Law &
Education, 31(293).
Munson, L. (2014, June 26). Math majors key to NCAA trial result. Retrieved from
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11141656/math-majors-most-importantwitnesses-ed-obannon-ncaa-trial
Munson, L. (2016, October 3). High court passes on NCAA case, but players still could get paid.
Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/17704400/us-supreme-courtdecision-not-take-ed-obannon-ncaa-case-does-not-end-paying-player-debate

164

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010, July). Amateurism. 2010-2011 Division I
Manual, July 2010, 65. Abstract obtained from Clear Line of Demarcation, 2010,
Abstract No. 12.01.2.
National letter of intent [Fact sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nationalletter.org/
The NCAA lawsuit. (2011, March 29). Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-and-march-madness/ncaa-lawsuit/
NCAA tournament deal with CBS, Turner extended through 2032. (2016, April 12). Retrieved
from http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15190549/ncaatournament-deal-cbs-turner-extended-2032
NCAA Tournament timeline. (2013, March 11). Retrieved from
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/03/11/In-Depth/Timeline.aspx
New, J. (2015, October 1). No clear winner. Inside Higher Ed., News & opinion.
New, J. (2016, October 4). An amateurism challenge evaporates, but others loom for NCAA.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/04/supreme-courtdeclines-hear-obannon-case-focus-turns-other-antitrust-lawsuits
Nocera, J. (2015, January 12). Playing college moneyball. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/joe-nocera-playing-collegemoneyball.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-r
egion®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
Northern Securities Case. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/LearnAbout-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Northern-Securities-Case.aspx
Northwestern football union timeline. (2015, August 17). Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13456482/northwestern-football-union-line
Nunneley, S. (2015, July 17). Judge has approved $60M settlement in EA and NCAA lawsuit
[Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.vg247.com/2015/07/17/judeg-approved-60million-ea-ncaa-settlement/
O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 14 F. 15 (9th Cir. 2015).
O'Bannon v. NCAA (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit September 30, 2015).
O'Bannon v. NCAA, 15 1167 Brief in Opposition (May, 2016).
O’Toole, T. (2010, April 22). NCAA reaches 14-year deal with CBS/Turner for men’s basketball
Tournament, which expands to 68 teams for now. Retrieved from

165

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/04/ncaa-reaches-14year-deal-with-cbsturner/1
Parent, C. M. (2003). Forward progress : An analysis of whether student-athletes should be
paid. Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 3(226).
Pekron, C. W. (2000). The professional student-athlete: Undermining amateurism as an antitrust
defense in NCAA compensation challenge. Hamline Law Review, 24(24).
Plaintiffs-Appellees’ opposition brief in response to National Collegiate Athletic Association’s
opening appellate brief, O’Bannon v. NCAA (2015) (Nos. 14-16601 & 14-17068)
Rasche, C. M. (1997). Can universities afford to pay for play: A look at vicarious liability
implications of compensating student athletes. Review of Litigation, 16(219).
Reed, K. (2011, March 25). League of fans proposes eliminating athletic scholarships to help
restore integrity on college campuses. Retrieved from
http://www.nadar.org/index.php?/archives/2252-League-of-Fans-ProposesEliminating-Athletic-Scholarships-to-Help-Restore-Integrity-on-College-Campuses.html
Rosenberger, A. L. (2014). Northwestern University and College Athletes Players Association.
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 6(1), 1-9.
Sack, A. L. (1988). Are "improper benefits" really improper? A study of college athletes' views
concerning amateurism. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 12(1), 1-16.
Schwarz, A. (2011). The $2,000 stipend and the Rule of Reason: An antitrust analysis. Retrieved
from http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/15083501409/the-2000-stipend-and-therule-of-reason-an
Scully, T. (1985). NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma: The NCAA's
television plan is sacked by the Sherman Act. Catholic University Law Review, 34(3),
856-887.
The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://linfo.org/sherman_txt.html
Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51
Sherman, R. (2016, April 12). The NCAA's new March Madness TV deal will make them a
billion dollars a year. Retrieved from http://www.sbnation.com/collegebasketball/2016/4/12/11415764/ncaa-tournament-tv-broadcast-rights-money-payout-cbsturner
Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2011). The game of life: College sports and educational
values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

166

Siegfried, J. J., & Burba, M. G. (2004). The College Football Association television broadcast
cartel. Antitrust Bull., 49(799).
Singer, M. (2014, August 7). Connecticut's Shabazz Napier: 'We do have hungry nights'
Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/connecticuts-shabazznapier-we-do-have-hungry-nights/
Smith, R. A. (2011). Pay for play: A history of big-time college athletic reform. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Solomon, J. (2012, September 3). Ed O'Bannon lawsuit seeks to change how current athletes are
compensated. Retrieved from
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/09/ed_obannon_lawsuit_seeks_to_ch.html
Solomon, J. (2013, May 8). Ex-EA Sports producer: NCAA video games replicated real college
players. Retrieved from http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/exea_sports_producer_ncaa_vid.html
Solomon, J. (2014, June 6). How Sonny Vaccaro accidentally created the Ed O'Bannon case.
Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/how-sonny-vaccaroaccidentally-created-the-ed-obannon-case/
Solomon, J. (2014, June 6). Timeline: Ed O'Bannon vs. NCAA. Retrieved
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24581878/timeline-edobannon-v-ncaa
Solomon, J. (2014, August 9). Q&A: What the O'Bannon ruling means for NCAA, schools and
athletes. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/
24654805/qa-what-the-obannon-ruling-means-for-the-ncaa-schools-and-athletes
Solomon, J. (2014, October 30). Two current athletes join Kessler lawsuit vs. NCAA,
conferences. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jonsolomon/24775854/two-current-athletes-join-kessler-lawsuit-vs-ncaa-conferences
Solomon, J. (2015, March 13). O'Bannon vs. NCAA: A cheat sheet for NCAA's appeal of paying
players. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/obannon-vsncaa-a-cheat-sheet-for-ncaas-appeal-of-paying-players/
Southall, R. M., Nagel, M. S., Amis, J. M., & Southall, C. (2008). A method to March madness?
Institutional logics and the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I
men’s basketball tournament. Journal of Sport Management, 22(6), 677-700.
Sperber, M. (1998). Onward to victory: The creation of modern college sports. London:
Macmillan.

167

SPORTS PEOPLE: The 'Cruel Hoax' (1987, September 13). Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/sports/sports-people-the-cruel-hoax.html
Staples, A. (2014, June 18). O'Bannon just the beginning: Jenkins case could unhinge NCAA.
Sports Illustrated.
Starkey, B. S. (2014, October 31). College sports aren't like slavery. They're like Jim Crow.
Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120071/
ncaa-college-sports-arent-slavery-theyre-jim-crow
Strauss, B. (2015, August 17). N.L.R.B. rejects Northwestern football players’ union bid.
New York Times, Sports.
Stripling, J. (2015, October 1). O'Bannon ruling heightens debate over pay for college players.
Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/O-Bannon-RulingHeightens/233525/
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press
The Trust Buster. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/43b.asp
Thelin, J. R. (1996). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics.
Baltimore: JHU Press.
Thomas, K. (2010, March 10). Ex-players join suit vs. N.C.A.A. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/sports/ncaabasketball/11colleges.html
Tsitsos, W., & Nixon, H. L. (2012). The star wars arms race in college athletics coaches’
pay and athletic program status. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 36(1), 68-88.
Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 03 Justice Lee Yeakel 53 (Texas Court of
Appeals 2000).
Waldron, T. (2014, April 7). UConn star: College athletes 'have hungry nights that we don't have
enough money to get food'. Retrieved from
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/04/07/3423798/uconn-star-college-athletes-havehungry-nights-that-we-dont-have-enough-money-to-get-food/
White v. NCAA (Verdict, Agreement and Settlement) (United States District Court C.D
California, Western Division January 28, 2008).
White v. NCAA (United States District Court C.D California, Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification October 19, 2006).

168

Whitford, D. (2013, August 29). SMU’s death penalty: The recruiting scandal that refuses to die.
Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2013/08/29/smus-death-penalty-the-recruiting-scandalthat-refuses-to-die/
Wieberg, S. (2003, December 23). NCAA's extra funding benefits athletes. Retrieved from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-12-23-ncaa-athlete-welfare_x.htm
Wilbon, M. (2011). College athletes deserve to be paid. Retrieved from
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid
Yankah, E. N. (2015, October 14). Why N.C.A.A. athletes shouldn't be paid. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/why-ncaa-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid
Zalesin, J. (n.d.). O'Bannon pushes for Supreme Court review of NCAA case. Retrieved from
https://www.law360.com/articles/802420/o-bannon-pushes-for-supreme-court-review-ofncaa-case
Zapata, R. (n.d.). NCAA, athletes end antitrust suit with $18.9M deal. Retrieved from
https://www.law360.com/articles/45673/ncaa-athletes-end-antitrust-suit-with-18-9m-deal
Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professional: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college
sports. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Zola, W. K. (2013, February 11). The illusion of amateurism in college athletics [Blog Post].
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-k-zola/college-athletes-pay-toplay_b_2663003.html

169