The NCAA is seeking to remove multidistrict litigation antitrust claims relating to the organization’s rules regarding student-athlete compensation. Currently, the NCAA maintains that college athletics is a form of competitive amateurism. The NCAA’s unwillingness to pay student-athletes compensation beyond the cost of attendance is based in the belief that college sports are hobbies played by amateur athletes. On Monday, May 18, 2016, the NCAA claimed that the issue of student-athlete compensation has already been litigated in the O’Bannon case ruling (2015).
Previously, in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2014 ruling that the NCAA’s amateurism policy against student-athlete compensation was anti-competitive. According to the court, the rules fixed the cost of college education for student-athletes. The court’s affirmative ruling allowed student-athletes to be compensated up to the full cost of attendance. In a victory for the NCAA, the court denied removing that cap, citing the damage it would cause to the amateurism goals of intercollegiate athletics.
Now, the student-athlete pay issue has returned to litigation, with an attempt to remove the compensation cap. The NCAA argues that the Ninth Circuit ruling in O’Bannon has already handled student-athlete compensation. According to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, “Following O’Bannon, the substantive rule in this circuit is that the antitrust laws do not bar defendants from prohibiting their member schools from paying student-athletes above the cost of attendance. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in O’Bannon may not be relitigated here.”
Both the NCAA and Ed O’Bannon have filed for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the O’Bannon case. Although both sides seek different outcomes, the parties have common ground in belief that the Ninth Circuit applied the wrong tests to analyze the amateurism rules. The NCAA is seeking to have the Supreme Court’s ruling in Oklahoma v. Board of Regents (1984) reaffirmed, which protected the NCAA’s definition of amateurism.
If the claim moves forward or the Supreme Court takes up the O’Bannon case, the NCAA stands to lose much of its control over student-athlete pay. As for the student-athletes, each victory is a step towards more control and, potentially, compensation beyond the cost of attendance.