On Tuesday September 8, 2015, the NCAA continued its opposition of class certification in a multidistrict antitrust litigation, which seeks to reduce NCAA restrictions on scholarship caps for Bowl Subdivision D-1 football players and for men’s and women’s basketball teams. The lawsuits, filed on behalf of past and current NCAA athletes, also aim to reduce restrictions on what schools can offer their players—like compensation, for example.
The plaintiff’s initial filing seeking class certification came in April 2015. For the individual cases to be certified, the plaintiffs must show that the cases share common questions of law or fact and that the named plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the class.
In its opposition to the April filing, the defendants (the NCAA and several collegiate athletic conferences) argued that conflicts would exist between the named plaintiffs and unnamed class members should certification be approved. The defendants particularly contended that implementing increases in funding to their football and basketball programs would lead many D-1 schools to reduce funding as to their other sports. Therefore, the defendants submitted that certification should be denied.
In replying to the opposition, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ contentions were speculative. The plaintiffs further submitted that they were not proposing to eliminate restrictions; they explained that better alternative rules could be put in place.
However, through the defendants’ September sur-reply brief, they countered that the plaintiffs have not shown the viability of alternative rules or explained how such rules will maintain the interests of absent class members.