Lawsuit could bring change to college sports
Could a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Virginia and Tennessee further erode, or even end, the NCAA’s regulatory role in college athletics? If so, it would be a victory for the students whose sweat on the field and the court earns the NCAA and its member schools billions each year.
The NCAA’s end seems closer than ever after a judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction against the organization, halting its enforcement of rules that allow students to earn money based on their name, image and likeness, also known as NIL.
“Colleges and universities benefit dramatically from the success of their student athletes,” Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said in a news release in January announcing the lawsuit. “It’s only fair that student athletes also get the full picture of how they may benefit from their choice of school as well.”
How dramatically do they benefit? According to revenue numbers from USA Today covering the 2022-23 year, the athletics programs at public universities in only two conferences — the SEC and Big 10 — collected $2.17 billion and $2.04 billion in revenue, respectively.
Some 22 schools, including the University of Virginia ($162 million), topped $150 million in revenue. Virginia Tech collected $113 million; Old Dominion generated $53 million. While there have always been haves and have-nots in college sports, the explosion of television revenue from football and men’s basketball means schools, especially in major conferences, are raking in more money than ever.
Yet, until recently, the athletes themselves were compensated only through scholarships — and only a fraction of roughly 500,000 students who compete under the NCAA umbrella enjoyed even that.
The NCAA prohibited athletes from trading in on their prowess and popularity, meaning a fan could buy a $100 replica of their favorite player’s jersey, but the player wouldn’t see a dime. That might make sense if collegiate athletics was truly an amateur endeavor.
But with schools, conferences, bowl games and everyone else cashing in, it’s absurd that the very reason people watch and enjoy college sports — the kids on the field — shouldn’t share the benefits.
That has changed as the NCAA lost several lawsuits challenging its control of player opportunities and behavior. The introduction of NIL enables athletes to sign sponsorship deals or earn, essentially, a salary for playing sports, though only a handful of budding superstars make a significant sum.
The joint Tennessee-Virginia lawsuit takes aim at the enforcement of those rules and their application during recruitment. It argues that limiting NIL opportunities amounts to an unfair restriction of trade in violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.
The NCAA has lobbied Congress to extend the organization an antitrust exemption, without success. The preliminary injunction issued Friday suspends the NCAA’s power to enforce NIL rules while the case is decided.
The judge has said the suit is likely to succeed. There is a concern about how these tectonic changes in the collegiate landscape could affect non-revenue sports, such as lacrosse, field hockey or baseball, as well as how a loss in revenue could affect requirements under Title IX, which greatly expanded access to college sports for women.
That may be offset by how many athletes in less popular sports are benefiting from NIL deals. Louisiana State University gymnast Livvy Dunne earned more than $3 million last year, ranking her third in NIL revenue among all college athletes.
Iowa sharp-shooter Caitlin Clark and LSU’s Angel Reese, both women’s basketball players, are in a similar stratosphere. Reform would do the NCAA some good and the organization may still have a role to play in management of sports outside of football and basketball.
That role will be further diminished if the Virginia-Tennessee lawsuit succeeds, as it should. The NCAA wants to preserve a reality that no longer exists.