A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law: Why the NCAA’s ‘No Pay’ Rules Violate Section One of the Sherman Act
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Marc Edelman (Barry University) offers A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law: Why the NCAA’s ‘No Pay’ Rules Violate Section One of the Sherman Act
ABSTRACT: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) oversees nearly every aspect of the $11 billion college sports industry. Its powers include scheduling championship events, determining eligibility rules, entering into commercial contracts, and punishing members that refuse to follow its authority. In recent years, some NCAA members have become increasingly wealthy – grossing annual revenues upwards of $100 million per year. However, the NCAA’s rules still deprive these members of the opportunity to share their wealth with student-athletes.
This article explains why the NCAA’s “no pay” rules violate Section One of the Sherman Act. Part I of this article introduces the NCAA, its Principle of Amateurism, and its traditional enforcement mechanisms. Part II provides a brief overview of Section One of the Sherman Act – the “comprehensive charter of economic liberty” in American trade. Part III provides a detailed explanation about why the NCAA ‘no pay’ rules constitute both an illegal form of wage fixing and an illegal group boycott. Part IV then explores eight lower-court decisions that incorrectly find the NCAA eligibility rules to be non-commercial and thus exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Meanwhile, Part V analyzes four additional lower-court decisions that misconstrue the NCAA eligibility rules to be pro-competitive under a Rule of Reason review. Finally, Part VI concludes that even if a court were to find that competitive balance is a reasonable basis for upholding certain “no pay” rules, such rules still should not come from the NCAA, but rather from the individual conference level.
Featured News
Hess Shareholders Approve $53 Billion Merger with Chevron
May 28, 2024 by
CPI
EU Regulators Engage with Telegram as App Nears Critical Usage Threshold
May 28, 2024 by
CPI
EEX Offers Remedies to Address EU Antitrust Concerns Over Nasdaq Deal
May 28, 2024 by
CPI
BRG Expands European Competition Practice with New Expert Team in Brussels
May 28, 2024 by
CPI
UK Law Empowers Regulators to Fine Big Tech Without Court Approval
May 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI