By Leticia R. Halas
The day is drawing near for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). A class certification hearing for the NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (O’Bannon/Keller) is scheduled for June 20, 2013. The NCAA understands the actual danger that class certification poses on its traditional business model. Among other issues, the NCAA fears a proposed switch to a “pay for play” model. However, concerns surrounding this litigation stretch far beyond economics. A plethora of foreseeable impacts were discussed in depth at a recent sports law symposium.
First and foremost, the panelists recognized the economic impact as being at the core. If the plaintiffs prevail, many athletic departments across the country will lose revenue and universities could face a significant reduction in sports programs. For the most part, athletic departments are self-funded. The bigger, more popular sports such as football and basketball generate revenue to support the smaller, less popular sports. As a result of lost revenue, some of the smaller sports could be eliminated entirely.
Student-athletes will suffer the effects of reduced revenue directly. Universities will have less money for scholarships and thus, fewer opportunities for prospective students. Teams will travel less frequently or be forced to compete within their respective regions during non-conference schedules. Access to new equipment and uniforms will be limited and could ultimately affect athletic performance. The student-athlete experience, as a whole, will deteriorate if university revenues are diminished by the current lawsuit.
If a pay for play model is to be adopted, all students on campus would be impacted, not just the athletes. Essentially, campus culture would undergo drastic change if student-athletes were being compensated. For example, Stanford University currently has roughly 850 student-athletes and they are all “paid” the same. One panelist explained that there is a strong sense of community within the athletics department where student-athletes support each other emotionally and psychologically. It was further noted that compensating athletes would result in the destruction of campus camaraderie. Not only could campus camaraderie within the athletics department be compromised, social separation would widen to include the entire student body.
Currently, elite student-athletes stand on the same social tier as other students because they do not receive compensation. If pay for play is to be implemented, the eruption of social classes is anticipated. Universities which are intended to be institutions of equal opportunity, would transform into communities based on class or hierarchy. (For instance, divisions between students-athletes who are getting paid substantially, students-athletes who are getting paid very little, and regular students who are not getting paid at all.) The student body would be dissected into breadwinners and those that impose a financial burden on the university. Student-athletes could be perceived in a different light by their peers which may adversely affect educational goals.
The preservation of campus culture became a reoccurring theme of importance throughout the symposium. Some panelists seemed to appreciate a unique and special need to safeguard amateurism. Contrastingly, other panelists were passionate about the viability of the plaintiffs’ claims in the current litigation. Historically however, lawsuits involving the NCAA that attempt to provide recourse are uniformly settled and judicial remedies are rarely seen. Given that tendency, the likelihood of a settlement in the current case is high. The outcome of next month’s class certification hearing is pivotal to the forward movement of this litigation. College athletics are on the brink of social, economic and legal change.
