As the nation turns its attention to college basketball this weekend, fans will be watching what happens on the court. Lawyers and other interested parties will continue to monitor what happens.
The NCAA’s business model is under attack from all sides, with multiple cases challenging the organization’s refusal to grant employee status to athletes. And last week, two athletes took specific aim at one of the most recognizable and prestigious conferences in college sports.
Brown University basketball players Grace Kirk, who currently plays for the women’s basketball team, and Tamenang Choh, who played on the men’s basketball team until 2022, continued their university and the other seven Ivy League schools for their policy prohibiting the offering of athletic scholarships, alleging that it amounts to illegal price-fixing in violation of federal antitrust law.
This is the intriguing new challenge to the status quo. Here’s what you need to know.
What the case claims
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut by attorneys representing Kirk and Choh. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class action lawsuit on behalf of current and former Ivy League athletes dating back to March 7, 2019.
The problem is the fact that Ivy League athletes are not reimbursed in the form of athletic scholarships like their peers at other schools are. The suit alleges that the defendant schools do not act with purely altruistic motivations, but rather “seek to maximize their revenue (and prestige).” It says there is “no pro-competitive justification” for Ivy League schools to agree to limit compensation, whether direct payment or tuition reimbursement. That’s because Ivy League athletes pay far more than their peers for the opportunity to compete in college sports and receive far less for the services they provide.
“We hope this lawsuit will bring Ivy League athletics into the 21st century by subjecting these universities’ treatment of Ivy League athletes to antitrust laws, just as courts have applied those laws to all other NCAA Division I athletic programs,” Berger said. Eric Cramer of Montague, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, in a statement.
“The Ivy League deal is particularly egregious given the enormous sums of money these schools have,” added Ted Normand, co-counsel for the proposed class and founding partner of Freedman Normand Friedland LLP. “Where hundreds of Division I schools with far fewer resources compete with no limits on athletic scholarships, compensation or reimbursements, Ivy League schools have no excuse not to likewise.”
Ivy League Executive Director Robin Harris said in a statement that students and their families have a “wide variety of options” when making their college choice, each with “its own distinct features and benefits.”
“The Ivy League athletics model is built on the fundamental principle that student-athletes should be representative of the broader student body, including the opportunity to receive financial aid based on need,” said Harris. “In turn, choosing and embracing this principle provides every Ivy League student-athlete with a pathway that balances a world-class academic experience with the opportunity to compete in Division I sports and ultimately paves the way for lifelong success .”
Why is this important
The legal environment for the NCAA and its member schools has become more fragile than ever since the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the organization in NCAA vs. Alston in June 2021. This decision, while narrow and related to capping education benefits, opened the door to future challenges to the broader college model. Justice Brett Kavanaugh essentially asked for them in his concurring opinion.
The athletes’ complaint directly cites the Kavanaugh deal: “Nowhere else in America can corporations get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate, on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers the fair market rate. » The lawsuit goes on to claim that what Kavanaugh described is what Ivy League schools do.
The Ivy League has long been the only Division I conference to operate this way, and it has done so even as other schools with prestigious academic traditions (Duke, Stanfordetc.) participate in the allocation and payment of sports scholarships.
The complaint cites a number of recent cases challenging the collegiate model as well as the NCAA’s interim NIL policy and DI Transformation Committee recommendations that grant additional benefits to athletes, ranging from increased participation in governance mental health support and post-playing career preparation. National Labor Relations Board pursues unfair labor practice charge filed against U.S.C., the Pac-12 and the NCAA. There’s also a new Congress in session, with some lawmakers particularly enthusiastic about taking on the NCAA. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing to discuss name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights for college athletes on March 29 in Washington, DC.
“There is therefore a national trend toward recognizing the rights of college athletes to realize their market values in terms of educational benefits and compensation for their athletic services,” the complaint states. “The University Defendants continue to adhere to an anachronistic, unfair and illegal horizontal agreement that severely restricts competition for Ivy League athletes with respect to the most fundamental element of competition: prize money. »
The issues in this case and the arguments it contains relate to a lawsuit filed last year accusing more than a dozen wealthy universities – including six Ivy League schools – of collusion and price-fixing in deliberately restricting student financial aid. Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 allowed schools with need-blind admissions policies to be exempt from antitrust law, and the exemption was renewed annually for 28 years but did not was not renewed last October. The lawsuit, which includes some of the same lawyers as the Ivy League’s subsequent lawsuit, argues that a collective of wealthy schools that use a need-blind admissions process (called the Group of 568 Presidents) does not does not operate on a truly needs-blind basis. . Last summer, a judge denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the case in the Section 568 case; this case will move to the discovery phase.
Some of the arguments made by lawyers in the Ivy League case build on arguments made against the group of 568 presidents (several, but not all, Ivy League schools belong to the group). If the Ivy League is not truly operating in the blind, as this lawsuit claims, then shouldn’t these schools comply with federal antitrust law? And if so, why should they agree among themselves not to pay for athletic scholarships?
Expect the defendants’ attorneys to file a motion to dismiss the suit in the coming weeks, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys to respond subsequently. This is likely headed to a hearing before a judge.
(Photo: Rachel O’Driscoll/Getty Images)
