Recently, several former members of the University of Tennessee Volunteers female training staff sued the University for violating their Title IX rights. While many people may have been caught up with Peyton Manning’s name in the filing, others were probably confused about why Title IX was invoked at all. After all, Title IX is concerned with female athletes having the opportunity to receive scholarships for playing collegiate sports, right? Partly, but it can also be invoked in cases where a woman feels her rights have been infringed upon, notably in the context of a number of high-profile sexual assault cases at major universities. Read on to find out the whole scope of the landmark statute and what role it is playing in potentially punishing universities for their actions.

What is Title IX?

Title IX is actually a section of the Educational Amendments that were passed in 1972. The purpose of these amendments was to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex in all federally-funded education programs and activities. Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Since its inception, the law has been the basis for numerous amendments, reviews, political actions, and even Supreme Court cases. While Title IX is primarily discussed in the context of athletics, there are several other areas that the law regulates.

In regard to athletics, Title IX regulations require schools to give women the same amount of access as they do for men. Once it became law, Title IX had a measurable effect on female participation in sports. The law ensures that all schools provide equitable opportunities for both male and female sports including availability, resources, and scholarships. In 1972, when the law went into effect, only about 295,000 girls played sports at the high school level in the United States. Fast-forward to 2011 and that number has risen to 3.2 million. Additionally, the number of women receiving athletic scholarships went from zero to 200,000 over the same period.

The opportunity to participate in athletic programs has significant consequences beyond access for women who want to participate. In fact, increased participation has also been associated with increased graduation rates, healthier lives, and diminished trouble with the law.

The video below gives an overview of the effects of Title IX in sports:

Criticism of Title IX

While Title IX has clearly had a significant impact on female participation in athletics and equality in education more generally, the law still has its critics. On one side are those who complain that Title IX is still not doing enough to prevent discrimination. This group’s argument began almost immediately after the law’s inception when it was weakly enforced and nearly eliminated thanks to the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Grove City vs. Bell. Even as the law started to be more rigorously enforced after Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, women at all levels of athletics still have much lower rates of participation and receive less funding than men. Others also argue that enforcement remains weak and investigations can drag on for a long time without being fully resolved.

On the other hand, the law is also criticized by those who bemoan its effects on men’s sports. This starts with the prevailing belief that funding a women’s sport means cutting funding to men’s teams. But between 1988 and 2011, for example, over 1,000 new men’s sports teams were added by NCAA members. Additionally, many of the men’s sports that have seen spending cuts during this time were the victims of universities’ increasing focus and spending on two high-profile sports–football and men’s basketball–and not necessarily because of funding for women’s sports. The interaction between these two sports and Title IX is also frequently misunderstood. Title IX does not require schools to spend the same amount of money on men’s and women’s sports. Instead, all Title IX requires is that the “benefits and services” provided to both men and women are equal.

Preventing Assault

While most discussion of Title IX focuses on athletics, much of the public’s attention has started to shift toward the law’s role in preventing sexual assault. Indeed, protecting students against sexual assault has become one of the most important aspects of Title IX. The Supreme Court even ruled that schools may be liable if they fail to address reported incidents. According to the Department of Education, sexual violence “refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent… A number of different acts fall into the category of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse, and sexual coercion.”

As more students speak out about the issue of sexual assault on college campuses and evidence about its prevalence mounts, the government has taken a more active role in dealing with the issue using Title IX. There’s a large number of surveys that measure sexual assault and sexual violence on college campuses, but many often come to different conclusions about the extent to which it affects undergraduates. Most cite the statistic that 1-in-5 female students are victims of sexual assault, and even that figure has its critics. Tyler Kinkade at the Huffington Post points out that while these statistics may be good talking points, the reason that the issue has become so important is because of the large number of students calling for more attention and better procedures to deal with these incidents.

Enforcement and High-Profile Incidents

While concern and outrage over alleged sexual assaults have increased, enforcement has faced some resistance. This seeming indifference reached such a zenith that in 2014 the Department of Education released a list of over a 100 colleges and universities under investigation for violating Title IX. The Department expounded upon this last year, releasing a “Dear Colleague” letter in which it reminded its constituent schools what sorts of actions violate Title IX laws. That letter was a follow-up to a similar one sent out in 2011–which itself was a reminder of sexual harassment guidelines released in 2001–that gave schools instructions on how to deal with sexual assault complaints. As these steps show, these schools under investigation have been repeatedly reminded of their responsibilities, yet many high profiles cases have come up recently.

The incident involving Peyton Manning and the University of Tennessee is a perfect example of the difficulties surrounding these types of cases. The case began all the way back in 1997 with a lawsuit against Manning and the University of Tennessee. It continued with another lawsuit against Manning in 2003, after the release of his autobiography in which he depicted one of the women involved unfavorably. The newest lawsuit that was filed earlier this year shows how long the process surrounding these cases can last. In the meantime, the woman who accused Manning had to agree to leave the school, while the university won a national championship and he was able to enjoy a long and storied career. According to the suit, instead of protecting victims, the school actually created an environment that was hostile to them.

This is certainly not the only controversial incident. Another high-profile incident involved former Florida State University quarterback and current Tampa Bay Buccaneers player Jameis Winston. In 2012, a female student sued Florida State for its investigation of her rape complaint against Winston and its “deliberate indifference” throughout the process. FSU’s poor handling of the case also led her to file a lawsuit. The civil suit against the school was resolved this year when FSU paid a $950,000 settlement. The alleged victim has also filed a civil suit against Winston; he has countersued.

The following video looks at the alleged Title IX infraction at FSU:

Results and Remaining Issues

Since the Office of Civil Rights began stepping up its expectations and enforcement of Title IX violations, the number of investigations has increased dramatically. Accusations like these and the actions of the Department of Education are not isolated incidents. As of April 2015, the Department of Education had over 100 active investigations for sexual violence-related Title IX issues. In its Dear Colleague letters, OCR instructs institutions to develop new standards for investigating complaints and instructed institutions to hire a Title IX coordinator to ensure that cases are handled properly.

It is important to note that in many of these investigations, including the ones surrounding Manning and Winston, no one has been found guilty in a criminal court–though criminal guilt is not necessarily the point. Regardless, the original claims were not adequately investigated, and in some cases ignored. Proper investigations may also disprove the claims and absolve the accused. Too often, though, school are accused of not pursuing complaints thoroughly or do not have the necessary processes in place to properly investigate them. Due to these shortcomings, victims are often depicted negatively and a culture of hostility can result.

Unfortunately, OCR’s investigations and related civil suits often take a very long time to complete. The Department of Education has a large backlog of investigations into schools that have been accused of violating Title IX. While President Obama made a push for more funding, little more was granted, and likely not enough to offset the rise in the number of cases and the loss of approximately a third of the Department’s workforce. Title IX also covers K-12 school districts, along with colleges and universities–adding another lay of emphasis in resolving these cases and achieving resolutions.

Conclusion

While Title IX is often seen as a law that guarantees equality in sports, it is much more than that. Athletics is only one of many areas in which the statute seeks to ensure fairness and equality. What is clearer than Title IX’s exact breadth is its impact, as it has drastically improved the opportunities for women and girls in the United States. Unfortunately, what is also clear is the limitations of the legislation and the trouble that many institutions have complying with the new guidance.

One example of these limitations, and probably the most troubling, is in regard to sexual harassment. There have been repeated, high-profile incidents of workers and students complaining of sexual harassment or assault. As the growing number of OCR investigations indicate, schools have had a hard time instituting processes to adequately deal with these cases. This is exactly the type of thing Title IX was meant to prevent, yet has struggled to accomplish. The law is certainly not a panacea, but it applies to more than just sports and with greater implementation, it can have a very wide-reaching effect.

Resources

Feminist Majority Foundation: Empowering Women in Sports

Title IX: History of Title IX

NCAA: How is Title IX Applied to Athletics?

The Washington Post: Title IX has Helped Encourage Many Girls to Play Sports

USA Today: Florida State Agrees to pay Winston Accuser $950,000 to Settle Suit

ESPN: Baylor Faces Accusations of Ignoring Sex Assault Victims

CNN: 23% of Women Report Sexual Assault in College, Study Finds

Huffington Post: Federal Campus Rape Investigations Near 200, And Finally Get More Funding

Department of Education: Dear Colleague Letter on Title IX Coordinators

U.S. Department of Education: U.S. Department of Education Releases List of Higher Education Institutions with Open Title IX Sexual Violence Investigations

U.S. Department of Education: Dear Colleague Sexual Violence

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Title IX: More Than Just Sports appeared first on Law Street.

The NCAA’s amateurism rule is rubbish. On its website, the college athletics governing body claims it has “adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.” The page goes on to list all the things student athletes are not allowed to do under the principle of amateurism, including:

1. Salaries for participating in athletics;
2. Contracts with professional teams;
3. Benefits from an agent or a prospective agent;
4. Agreement to be represented by an agent; and
5. Tryouts, practice, or competition with a professional team.

In the meantime, the University of Texas basketball program collected more than $165 million in revenue for the 2013-2014 season, according to the Office of Postsecondary Education. Forbes values its football program at a cool $139 million, while the NCAA as a whole made nearly $913 million for the fiscal year 2013.

If the NCAA is starting to sound like a cartel, that’s because it is. By definition, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to fix prices. A long time ago, colleges got together and decided not to pay players, fixing the salaries of their student-athlete employees at zero for the benefit of NCAA and participating universities’ leadership.

So then, it becomes evident that the NCAA needs to get rid of its amateurism rule. Fortunately, the rule is already under assault in the court room.

In a March 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision, Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that a group of Northwestern University football players are eligible to form a union on the basis that players devote as many as 50 hours a week to football, and that scholarships, which can be terminated yea to year and require student athletes to adhere to certain guidelines, are a contract for compensation.

In an August 2014 California District Court decision, Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that “NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools” in a case involving a former UCLA basketball star who claimed the NCAA and EA Sports violated his right to use his image for marketing purposes when his image was used in a video game without his consent and without compensation.

Nevertheless, there are numerous arguments against compensating student athletes.

Some argue that a vast majority of athletic programs at universities are losing money and need help from their basketball and football programs to stay afloat. Compensating student athletes, they contend, will force athletic departments across the country to cut programs.

Tough luck. We live in a capitalist society where businesses close every day because they fail to make a profit. If a university believes that maintaining these programs leads to more donations from alumni, fine, fund them through donations. But student athletes contributing to profitable programs should not be punished for the financial woes of their unprofitable counterparts.

Others argue that scholarships reasonably compensate student athletes.

No, they don’t. In a Drexel University and National College Players Association study, the average Division I college basketball player would earn $266,000 per year, and the average Division I football player would earn $114,000 per year, if players received 50 percent of the revenue earned by their respective programs, which is approximately the revenue sharing model of the NBA and NFL.

Still, others argue that high school athletes have the right to decide whether or not they want to accept a scholarship and be bound by NCAA regulations.

Well, the NBA enforces a 19-year age minimum for draftees, and the NFL requires its draftees to be three years removed from high school. With the emergence of European and Chinese leagues, some high school basketball stars have opted to spend their last years of ineligibility abroad. With no comparable foreign football leagues, football stars are out of luck.

There is yet another denomination of people who argue that the NFL’s three-year rule protects young athletes who are more susceptible to injuries such as concussions.

In most states, minors become legal adults at the age of 18, and the legal age of consent is 16. High school football players are well aware of the risks associated with playing the sport, and they should have the option to get paid millions of dollars to take on the higher risks of playing professionally with better athletes, or receive scholarships and develop their skills in a less physical college setting.

Consequently, the most sensible solution to the NCAA amateurism problem is for the NBA and NFL to eliminate their age requirements. Unfortunately, college athletics function as a phenomenal developmental league for professional leagues that professional franchises do not have to pay for.

So, as long as these age requirements are in place, amateurism in college athletics is dead. The NCAA needs to stop pretending that its student athletes are students first, athletes second, and open up its leagues to all the intricacies of the free market.

Doing so may involve sports agents that specialize in college athletes, or a free agency period where eligible players can transfer to other universities. The market will invariably take many twists and turns before it settles into a final model, but it will certainly be better than a system in which a cartel blatantly exploits the services of helpless college athletes.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capitalism and College Sports: Time to Pay Student Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

On March 26, 2014, Peter Sung Ohr, a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), issued a landmark ruling that football players at Northwestern University are allowed to form a union. The college sports world erupted. Naturally, Northwestern immediately challenged the ruling. In the meantime, the case leaves players and universities with more questions than answers. Some athletes want unions, universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are fighting back, and fans are wondering if this will impact their BCS Bowl viewing parties. What exactly does this all mean, and are we slowly inching toward paying college athletes?

What is the case for unions?

Ohr’s ruling cites several important factors as reasons football players at Northwestern should be treated as university employees and therefore, allowed to unionize:

1. The football players are not primarily students. Players typically spend 40 to 50 hours per week playing football, which is more time than most people spend at a full-time job. This is also more time than the players spend on academics. Some players make the argument that the intense football schedule means practices interfere with schoolwork and limits their ability to take certain courses.
2. Northwestern has significant control over its players similar to the control employers exert over their workers. Scholarship recipients sign a tender which outlines the conditions of their scholarship. The agreement stipulates players’ behavior, requires housing leases be approved by a coach, and even states a player must accept a coach’s friend request on social media. Additionally, players must sign away rights to their image and likeness.
3. The University recruits players chiefly on the basis of football ability. When scouting a player, academic skills are secondary to football, showing that the primary duty of a scholarship recipient is not to study, but to play football.

Listen to a more in-depth explanation of the ruling below:

What do the players actually want?

The College Athletes Players Union (CAPA) is the formal entity created to represent Northwestern’s players in a union. CAPA was formed by former college athletes, including former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, as an offshoot of the National College Players Association (NCPA), an advocacy group. Rather than fighting for pay, the union is about giving college athletes a seat at the negotiating table. The NCPA outlines 11 goals which are shared by CAPA and Northwestern’s players in their “Blueprint for Change”:

1. Minimize athletes’ risk to brain trauma by reducing contact practices, providing concussion experts, and funding research.
2. Raise the scholarship amount so a “full scholarship” will cover the actual cost of attendance, including incidentals and travel home.
3. Ensure players do not pay sports-related medical expenses out of pocket.
4. Increase graduation rates by reducing games that take place during the week and investing more in education.
5. Give students a non-athletic scholarship to continue their education if their athletic scholarship is eliminated.
6. Prevent universities from eliminating the scholarship of an athlete who suffered a permanent injury from the sport.
7. Enforce uniform safety guidelines to prevent injuries.
8. Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment for student-athletes. Right now, athletes are not allowed to make any money for any reason.
9. Prohibit punishment of athletes who have not committed a violation. Currently, NCAA sanctions can punish entire programs for years.
10. Guarantee an athletic release from universities if athletes want to transfer schools.
11. Allow all college athletes to transfer schools once without punishment.

What is not included (yet) — any desire for a pay-for-play program.

 What would a union look like for players?

On April 25, 2014, football players at Northwestern made history by becoming the first collegiate athletes to vote on forming a union. However, the votes are impounded until Northwestern’s appeal to the NLRB is decided, which could take months or even years. The votes cast by Northwestern’s players will only be opened if the board sides with the players. Smart money says the 5-member, labor-friendly board will uphold Ohr’s decision that football players are employees. If the board upholds the decision, the mere right to vote on a union is a victory for Northwestern’s football players. It is likely by the time the case is ultimately decided, the players who voted will no longer be at Northwestern. But if the players voted against forming a union, they would still be considered employees even if the union movement at Northwestern would temporarily end. If the players voted for a union, the University would be forced to bargain with CAPA or force further appeals.

More importantly are the implications for the University at the NCAA. At this point, the union is not asking for a pay-for-play, but unions could be the first step down that road. Furthermore, if football players are treated as employees, they could be subject to tax on their scholarships.

What would a union mean for universities?

Most importantly, a union would mean Northwestern would have to negotiate with players and meet more of their demands. Northwestern strongly urged its students to vote against forming a union. Northwestern’s Vice President for University Relations Alan Cubbage issued a statement saying, “Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes.” Team officials see a union as transferring the players’ trust to a third party which may not have the players’ best interests in mind. They argue a union would create an “us versus them” mentality and create unnecessary tension for the team.

The NLRB ruling applies solely to private schools, only a handful of which (Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Duke, Miami) have big-name athletic programs. The law currently exempts public schools from NLRB jurisdiction, but public universities should be concerned if state labor boards decide to follow the lead of NLRB. The push from Northwestern’s players alone may make colleges consider greater dialogue with players in regard to health, safety, and full-cost scholarships. Simply by filing, the players have made athletic departments across the country more concerned that their players be treated fairly.

If upheld, the ruling will pose interesting questions to universities. If scholarship football players are considered employees, are other university athletes also considered employees? Would students on a musical or academic scholarship be considered employees? Would this have any Title IX implications for gender equality? Will the presence of athletic unions at private schools make their programs more desirable and destroy the NCAA’s competitive balance?

Why is the NCAA opposed?

The NCAA has long insisted that players are “student-athletes” who are foremost students, which is strongly at odds with the notion that student-athletes are employees. NCAA officials are quick to point out that 99 percent of college athletes will never play professional sports.The NCAA has created a system which has helped millions go to college, and they do not want to see this system thrown away. A primary concern is that allowing unions is a first step toward greater benefits for athletes, including pay. In 2012, the NCAA reported $872 million in revenue. Many players see their lack of receiving any of this compensation as exploitation. Below is a clip from NCAA’s President Mark Emmert discussing the impact of unionization:

Would unions change college sports?

Unions may be a big first step toward long-term change, but allowing unions themselves will not revolutionize the college sports’ world. Athletes will still take the field every Saturday and the NCAA will still make billions. A union will allow players to negotiate benefits on their own behalf. The ruling would make football players employees of the university, not of the NCAA, so there would not be any direct impact on any NCAA rules.

Currently, the NCAA is fighting a slew of lawsuits which pose greater threats to its future. Jeffrey Kessler and Ed O’Bannon have each brought a significant lawsuit:

• Kessler alleges the NCAA and 5 conferences are engaged in price-fixing for capping the compensation of athletes at the value of a scholarship and thus, violating antitrust laws. The intent is to strike-down rules that prevent college athletes from receiving a share of NCAA revenue and greater compensation.
• The O’Bannon case seeks licensing revenue from the NCAA for football and basketball players’ names, image, and likeness. The case could mean paying players for their jersey sales and for their use in video games.
  

  ---

Conclusion

Treating college athletes as employees means a fundamental shift in the negotiation rights provided to athletes. Whether or not the original NLRB ruling is upheld, universities and the NCAA will be forced to alter their own stance to ensure athletes do not feel that they are being exploited. Problems with college athletics will not disappear anytime soon, and major change is coming to the economic model of college sports.

Resources

Primary

College Athletes Players Association: Official website

Washington Law Review Association: The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee

National Labor Relations Board: Decision in Northwestern University Athletes Case

Additional

SB Nation: Northwestern Players’ Union Votes are in: Now What?

CBS: Northwestern Players Start Union Movement in College Athletics

Washington Post: College Athletics Have Many Problems, But a Union is the Wrong Way to Try to Fix Them

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: College Athletes Union Raises Tax, Discrimination Questions

ESPN: NU Players Cast Historic Vote

NU Game Changers: 10 Point Blueprint for Change

Slate: Northwestern Football Players Just Voted on a Union

NPR: Northwestern Players Cast Union Vote–But Results Will Have to Wait

USA Today: A Simple Guide to the Biggest Thing Happening in College Sports: Northwestern Football Union’s Fight

National College Players’ Assciation: Mission & Goals

Post Game: Deeper Look at Northwestern Football, NCAA Union Issue

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle in College Sports: Northwestern Football and Unions appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Right of publicity, the newer and increasingly more significant area of intellectual property law, has something stimulating for us this week. Former college athletes have alleged that the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) conspired to keep them from capitalizing off of their images, names, and likenesses. The NCAA attempted to dismiss these antitrust claims, covering the use of the athletes’ overall likenesses in video games and television. However, the four-year-old suit was denied dismissal in a California district court on October 25.

So what are the arguments here? Well, the NCAA subscribes to the traditional school of thought that college athletes are amateurs and as such aren’t entitled to compensation for the use of their images, which I think is completely ludicrous. Ed O’ Brannon, the UCLA basketball forward who brought the suit, contends that amateurism doesn’t justify the notion that student-athletes have no rights to commercial gain from the use of their own images. This as an obvious assertion. Honestly, as I’m reading through all of the NCAA’s contentions on this matter, all I’m hearing is ‘you can’t eat the apple you picked because you’re too young to appreciate it.‘

Among the conspiracy allegations is a claim that the NCAA conspired with Electronic Arts (EA), the well-known video game production company, to bar student-athletes from being monetarily rewarded for the use of their likenesses. EA has agreed to settle the claims against it and pay athletes $40 million.  As they should. After all, it’s the players who put in the hours during practice to create an image that generates income in the first place.

But here’s the thing, the Supreme Court has already upheld the proposition that college athletes shouldn’t be paid for the use of their images, names, and likenesses in order to “preserve the quality and character of college sports.” Well, compensating athletes while in college could beget a subculture of pompous attitudes and ostentatious presence on the court. Oh wait – that’s already happening. But a decline in quality and character of the sports? I’d like to see the facts, counsel.

Hear me out. The amount of money that colleges bring in for winning championships — or even just being invited to one — is ridiculously absurd. Not to mention money produced from ticket sales and paraphernalia.  Consumers pay to watch college athletes who subject themselves to injury and exhaustion for the betterment of their colleges‘ reputations. So how are they not laboring? Oh wait, they are.  Many colleges give athletes scholarships for tuition in exchange for a commitment for a player to join their team. Not to mention that they aren’t recruited as students – they’re recruited as athletes. Is the NCAA saying that they’ll pay for the labor but not allow for all the fruits of such labor? Why should compensating an athlete for the use of his likeness, formed from his goodwill, suddenly deviate from the proposed “quality and character of college sports?”

I understand that the NCAA wants all of the players to operate as a team, and not to be concerned that one student-athlete is “bringing home” more than another. However, players are already competing against each other to be spotlighted! It’s the nature of being a competitive athlete. Compensating them for using an image they’ve worked so hard to create for themselves wouldn’t change that.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Acid Pix via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hoop Dreams: Why the NCAA Doesn’t Care Who Was Shooting in the Gym appeared first on Law Street.