Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons^™

The Dawn Of A New Era: Antitrust Law Vs. The Antiquated Ncaa Compensation Model Perpetuating Racial Injustice, Amanda L. Jones

Northwestern University Law Review

Two crises in 2020 fueled the fire underlying a debate that has been smoldering for years: whether student athletes should be compensated. The COVID-19 pandemic coincided with the Black Lives Matter movement and drew unprecedented attention to systemic racism permeating society, including college sports that rely disproportionately on Black men risking physical harm to support an entire industry. The Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston opened the door for some athletic conferences to offer student athletes unlimited education-related benefits and called out the NCAA’s business model that relies on not paying student athletes under the justification of amateurism. Alston …

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 …

Assessing Amateurism In College Sports, Casey E. Faucon

Washington and Lee Law Review

College sports generate approximately $8 billion each year for the National C[artel] Athletic Association and its member institutions. Most of this revenue flows from lucrative television broadcasting deals, which often incorporate the right to commercialize and sell the names, images, and likenesses of college athletes. Under its current revenue scheme, student-athletes—85 percent of whom live below the poverty line—receive a share of zero. For over a century, we’ve justified this exploitative distribution scheme under a cloak of student-athlete “amateurism.” Antitrust challenges to the NCAA’s amateurism rules clash with the assumption that “amateurism” is a revered tradition and an important tenet …