Law Commons^™

Changing The Game: The Emergence Of Nil Contracts In Collegiate Athletics And The Continued Efficacy Of Title Ix, Leeden Rukstalis

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

On June 30, 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) suspended a 115-year prohibition on college athletes’ ability to profit from the use of their names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”). Historically, NCAA eligibility was determined by an athlete’s amateur status. Student athletes forewent compensation to preserve a line between professional and college sports. Today, the NCAA’s novel NIL policy recognizes an athlete’s right to publicity and allows them to share in the billions of dollars it generates every year. According to estimates, college athletes earned $917 million in the first year of NIL activity. By 2023, the NIL market is …

Blood, Sweat, Tears: A Re-Examination Of The Exploitation Of College Athletes, Keely Grey Fresh

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

2021 Louise Halper Award Winner for Best Student Note

The unrest revolving around compensation for college athletes is not a new concept. However, public attitudes are shifting. With spirited arguments on both sides, and the recent Supreme Court decision of National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston regarding antitrust exemptions, the issue has been placed in a spotlight. This Note examines the buildup of discontentment through the history of the NCAA and amateurism, specifically how the term “student-athlete” became coined. It will then move to litigation efforts by athletes in an attempt to gain employment status, and an alternative route of …

“No More No-Poach”: An Antitrust Plaintiff’S Guide, Amanda Triplett

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

It may seem that agreements between employers not to hire or solicit employees from each other would be illegal under the Sherman Act’s prohibition of conspiracies to fix prices or allocate markets. However, the complexity of this issue pushes the boundaries of antitrust law. But the core principals of antitrust law are tailored to reject them. In a market of employers, where firms are competitors, no-poach restraints have horizontal elements subject to a harsher standard of antitrust review. Firms that enter into these arrangements bypass legal methods to protect against the harms of employee loss, such as a non-compete agreement. …