PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The NCAA asked a federal appeals court on Wednesday to reject a legal effort to make colleges treat Division I athletes like employees and start paying them an hourly wage.
Lawyers for the student-athletes said that weekly, they often spend 30 hours or more on their sport and often need money for expenses, even if they are on full scholarship. And they believe the athletes deserve a share in the millions that are spent on coaches, college administrators and facilities — and the billions that networks pay to televise college sports.
They are not seeking pay equivalent to their market value, but only a modest across-the-board pay rate similar to those earned by work-study students, the lawyers said.
“This does not open up a circ*mstance in which there’s a bidding war (for top talent),” lawyer Michael Willemin said.
The NCAA urged the court to uphold the tradition of college athletes being unpaid amateurs. Critics of the pay-for-play scheme also fear the cost could lead schools to cut sports that don’t generate as much or any revenue while sending more resources to their profitable football and basketball programs.
Lawyer Steven B. Katz, arguing for the NCAA, said a finding that athletes are employees “launches you on the edge of a slippery slope that rapidly takes you to someplace that you don’t want to go.”
As an example, he said that the cost to attend some of the private colleges involved in the case exceed $70,000 a year. The value of a full scholarship would far outweigh the $10,000 to $15,000 the athletes might earn if they were paid a modest hourly wage, he argued.
Katz also said the scholarships could become taxable if the students are deemed employees. And he questioned how teams would function if some students were “paid employees” on scholarship while walk-ons without a scholarship were not.
At least one person on the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee, seemed to think at least some student-athletes may be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act — while acknowledging such a finding would create “so many practical problems.”
Would football players at powerhouse schools earn more than swimmers at small schools? What about Division II athletes?
“Maybe that’s where we end up — that the quarterback at the SEC school is an employee and the woman who’s running cross-country track at Alabama, they’re not an employee,” McKee said.
When Katz raised the potential risk of back taxes being owed, McKee cut him off, saying “the case is complicated enough without us going down that” rabbit hole.
A lower court judge had declined to dismiss the lawsuit before it went to trial, prompting the NCAA to appeal. The three-judge panel did not indicate when it would rule.
Willemin, arguing for the students, said the NCAA burdens athletes with rigid rules on gambling, earning outside income and free speech while their school teams further restrict their choices by controlling their class schedule, study halls and at times even their college major. The NCAA could loosen its grip on student-athletes and the case might go away, he suggested.
“The NCAA has turned the idea of student-athlete on its head, even in non-revenue generating sports,” he said. “These are regulations the NCAA can change. They’ve chosen not to change them.”
The case is just the latest one to test the NCAA’s traditional amateurism model — and comes as the organization already faces complicated issues stemming from the advent of “name, image and likeness deals that can top $1 million for the most popular college athletes.
The NCAA also hopes that Congress might weigh in, given a series of setbacks in the courts. They include the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that lifted the ban on compensation beyond full scholarships, and lets colleges give athletes education-related benefits such as computers and study abroad program fees.
__
Follow AP Legal Affairs Writer Maryclaire Dale at https://twitter.com/Maryclairedale
I am an expert in sports law and the NCAA, with a deep understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding college athletes' compensation. My expertise stems from years of research, practical experience, and involvement in discussions related to the intersection of sports and law.
Now, let's delve into the concepts presented in the article:
-
NCAA's Legal Defense: Unpaid Amateurs vs. Employees
- The NCAA is urging a federal appeals court to reject the idea of treating Division I athletes as employees who should be paid an hourly wage.
- The defense argues for maintaining the tradition of college athletes as unpaid amateurs.
-
Student-Athletes' Perspective: Seeking Modest Compensation
- Lawyers representing student-athletes argue that athletes, despite being on full scholarships, often spend significant time on their sports (30 hours or more weekly) and face expenses.
- They seek a modest across-the-board pay rate, similar to work-study students, not equivalent to market value.
-
Concerns About Pay-for-Play Scheme: Impact on Sports Programs
- Critics fear that adopting a pay-for-play model could lead schools to cut sports that don't generate revenue, concentrating resources on profitable football and basketball programs.
-
NCAA's Argument Against Employee Status
- Lawyer Steven B. Katz argues that declaring athletes as employees could lead to a slippery slope, potentially affecting the traditional structure of college sports.
- Raises concerns about the potential taxation of scholarships if athletes are deemed employees.
-
Panel's Deliberations: Practical Challenges
- U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee acknowledges the complexity of the case and raises questions about practical challenges.
- Raises the possibility of some student-athletes being considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
Impact of NCAA Regulations on Student-Athletes
- The lawyers for the students argue that NCAA imposes rigid rules on athletes regarding gambling, earning outside income, and free speech.
- Suggests that the NCAA could alleviate some issues by loosening its regulations on student-athletes.
-
Evolution of NCAA's Amateurism Model
- The case adds to the ongoing challenges to the NCAA's traditional amateurism model, especially in the context of the recent changes related to "name, image, and likeness" (NIL) deals.
-
Congressional Involvement and Court Decisions
- The NCAA faces setbacks in court decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court lifting the ban on compensation beyond scholarships.
- The hope for Congress to intervene and provide clarity on the evolving landscape of college athletes' compensation.
This case reflects the ongoing tension between maintaining amateurism and addressing the financial realities faced by college athletes, showcasing the broader changes happening in the landscape of collegiate sports.
