Law Commons^™

False Start On Nil: Public And Private Law Should Treat College Athletes Like Any Other Student, Jodi Balsam

Texas A&M Law Review

For most of its regulatory existence, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) has preached the importance of integrating intercollegiate athletics into the campus culture and educational mission, insisting that athletes be an integral part of the student body. A core element of this creed was the amateurism principle—college athletes must not be paid or professionalized. To preserve and enforce the amateurism principle, the NCAA and its divisions promulgated a vast and complex regulatory scheme that paradoxically resulted in segregating, rather than integrating, athletes into campus life. While nonathlete students enjoy increasing autonomy to pursue expressive and economic activity, athletes are …

College Athlete Unionization, Roberto Corrada

Texas A&M Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston has opened the door to serious consideration of the potential for college athlete unionization and collective bargaining. The ruling, highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, suggests collective bargaining as a potential solution to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA’s”) antitrust vulnerabilities. This Article delves into the initial legal and strategic questions surrounding the prospect of unionization, focusing particularly on NCAA Division I football and basketball, due to their significant revenue generation making them prime candidates for unionization efforts.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is positioned to …

The Nil Paradox: How Unfettered Nil Rights Will Shrink Student-Athlete Opportunities, Gary Way

Texas A&M Law Review

In 2019, California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act which granted student-athletes (“SAs”) attending institutions within the state the right to monetize the use of their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”). That enactment ushered in the most transformative change in college sports since the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) decision over 50 years ago to allow freshman eligibility to play varsity football. The California law, coupled with the subsequent Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston, which held that the NCAA’s limitations on education-related SA benefits constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, unleashed a …

An Antitrust Analysis Of The Ncaa Transfer Policy, Michael Carrier, Marc Edelman

Texas A&M Law Review

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) is no stranger to antitrust law. As a trade association composed of nearly all U.S. colleges offering competitive sports, its rules are regularly challenged under antitrust law. In the past 40 years, the NCAA has faced challenges to rules limiting televised game broadcasts, curtailing assistant coaches’ pay, and restraining players’ compensation, among other issues. Restraints on college athlete transfers also could subject the Association to reasonable legal scrutiny.

Restrictions on the ability to transfer can harm athletes by preventing their immediate eligibility even though transferring could allow them to be closer to family, enroll …

Good Lawyers, Good Sports?: The Professional Identity Of Sports Lawyers Representing Not-For-Profit Entities, Bruce Green

Texas A&M Law Review

ABA accreditation standards require law schools to develop students’ professional identity, including by encouraging “an intentional exploration of” the legal profession’s “values [and] guiding principles.” This Essay invites legal academia as well as practitioners to explore issues of legal ethics, professionalism, and, especially, professional identity in the context of a new area of legal practice: sports lawyers’ representation of “NIL collectives,” which are not-forprofit entities that college boosters establish to enable college athletes to benefit financially from their name, image and likeness (“NIL”). The work of sports lawyers advising NIL collectives offers an interesting case study for considering how professional …

Transcription Of 2023 Texas A&M Law Review Symposium: "More Than Sports: What Comes After Nil?", Jeffrey Kessler

Texas A&M Law Review

This transcription presents Jeffrey Kessler's keynote speech at the 2023 Texas A&M Law Review Symposium on NCAA v. Alston and the future ahead.

New Amateurism, Michael Mccann

Texas A&M Law Review

This Article proposes a new model for the legal and economic relationship between college athletes and their schools. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and its member conferences and schools are besieged with legal challenges over rules that restrain the capacity of athletes to earn compensation for their athletic labor and the commercial value of their identities. The legal challenges are extensive and scrutinize membership rules under labor, employment, and antitrust laws. The days of “amateurism” and the “student-athlete” enjoying judicial and administrative deference are over. For college sports to maintain a character distinct from professional leagues, university athletic programs that …

Off The Guardrails: Opportunities And Caveats For Name Image Likeness And The [Student] Athlete Influencer, Maureen Weston

Texas A&M Law Review

The landscape of college athletics is undergoing a seismic shift with the advent of Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) opportunities for student-athletes. In Off the Guardrails: Opportunities and Caveats for Name Image Likeness and the [Student] Athlete Influencer, Professor Maureen A. Weston examines the evolving terrain, tracing the journey from the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA’s”) rigid amateurism policies to the current era of NIL legislation and its implications. This Article navigates the complex intersection of athlete empowerment, entrepreneurial ventures, and regulatory challenges, shedding light on the multifaceted opportunities and risks for athletes in the burgeoning NIL market.

Delving …

Murphy V. Ncaa: The Constitutionality Of State-Authorized Sports Gambling, Shane Landers

Texas A&M Law Review

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus, “Congress may not simply ‘commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” In Murphy v. NCAA, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal law that prevents States from legalizing sports gambling “violates the anticommandeering rule.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy reemphasizes a fundamental principle of dual sovereignty—Congress is prohibited from “issu[ing] direct orders to the governments of …