By Vincent M. Jones Jr.
In a 66-page complaint dated on December 7, 2023, plaintiffs Dewayne Carter (Duke University football), Nya Harrison (Stanford University women’s soccer) and Sedona Prince (Texas Christian University women’s basketball) filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Northern District of California against the NCAA and its major conferences for claims of violation of anti-trust law under the Sherman Act Section 1, with claims including price fixing and group boycott (15 U.S.C. § 1). These conferences include the PAC-12, Big Ten, Big-12, SEC and the ACC in what is commonly known as the “Power Five”. The plaintiffs set out to challenge the strict ruling set-in place against compensating athletes for their efforts towards the revenue of both the specific universities and the conferences in what the NCAA calls “pay-for-play”. Each of these conferences hold heavy significance in college sports
and house some of the most popular and distinguished athletes both presently and historically.
According to the complaint, plaintiff Dewayne Carter, a standout fifth-year senior defensive tackle from Duke University, is a team captain for the Blue Devils football team that proved to be one of the ACC’s best unlike recent years. Carter is fourth all-time in program history in forced fumbles and seventieth in program history to record 11.5 in-season sack totals. In addition to his athletic prestige, Carter is a 3-time ACC Academic Honor Roll recipient and also a recipient of the 2023 Jim Tatum award, which is awarded to the top student-athlete in the conference. Plaintiff Nya Harrison is a junior defender on Stanford University’s women’s soccer team that boasted the number one defense in the country. In addition, Harrison is part of the United States National Team system and has competed in 5 domestic and 1 international camp for the U16 and U18 teams. Harrison is a bioengineering major and was named to the PAC-12 Fall Academic Honor Roll in 2022. Plaintiff Sedona Prince is a member of Texas Christian University’s (TCU) women’s basketball team with previous time spent at both the University of Texas at Austin (UT or Texas) and the University of Oregon. Prince was injured while representing Team USA at the U18 FIBA Americas Championship in Mexico City during her freshman year which resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants have actively exercised monopsony-like power in the labor markets for Division 1 college sports through price fixing of scholarships for college athletes. According to the plaintiffs, the NCAA controls the labor market and thus has the power to control prices and exclude competition to compensate athletes for services rendered. As it currently stands under NCAA rules, college athletes are not allowed to receive any funds or monetary gain for athletic performance outside of the calculation of scholarships that appropriate the cost of admission, medical coverage for athletes, and pay for athletes’ families to attend games. Bylaw 12.1.2.1 of the NCAA’s constitution states that “a college athlete loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual: (a) [u]ses athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport; [or] (b) [a]ccepts a promise of pay even if such pay is to be received following the completion of intercollegiate athletics participation (see Article 12 of NCAA Bylaws, Page 24).
It is the plaintiff’s argument that only athletes are seen as “amateurs” in collegiate sports; with coaches, administrators and directors earning millions of dollars with pay for top coaches exceeding $11 million dollars. In consolidated financial statements for the first fiscal year ending in August 2021, the NCAA reported a total revenue of $1,115,003,304. The plaintiffs cite these funds in addition to billions of dollars of revenue generated by the power five conferences and their member schools for activities such as broadcast agreements (Page 18). The belief of the plaintiffs’ is that the NCAA is that the compensation of athletes’ athletic performance will affect the overall competition of the game and consumer demand and because of this, the NCAA has always took a strong stance against monetary gain for athletic performance. The plaintiffs specifically mentioned that since the application of NIL (name, image, and likeness) and the ability for collegiate athletes to profit from it, television viewership for college football has risen nearly 15% through the first seven weeks of the 2023 season. Most of the money generated in college sports is through lucrative media contracts with broadcasting companies such as CBS, NBC and ESPN. It is through these deals and connections that power five conferences and their member schools see arguably their largest revenue. Notably, the Big Ten announced a new deal that is expected to haul in nearly $1 billion dollars through 2040. It is the plaintiffs’ view that rate in which college sports is being consumed is growing exponentially and with that growth comes monetary gain, a gain that they believe all college athletes should have some type of share in.
In their new complaint, the plaintiffs highlighted the strong language from a recent Supreme Court ruling. Justice Kavanaugh, who had the concurring opinion in the landmark Alston v. NCAA case in 2021 made the statement that the NCAA’s current athlete compensation rules and overall business model would be “flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America” (Page 5). He further stated that the NCAA is “not above the law.” (Page 5) The decision in that case was unanimous and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the NCAA’s restraints on education-related compensation and benefits violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The plaintiffs request for relief is multi-fold. First, the plaintiffs demand actual damages for Plaintiffs Carter, Harrison and Prince and the Damage Class members according to the proof at trial. Second, the plaintiffs claim entitlement to treble damages for Plaintiffs Carter and Prince and the Damage Class members pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15. Secondly, they demand a declaratory judgment for all Plaintiffs and the Injunctive Relief Class members declaring as void the NCAA Bylaws and rules that operate to restrict the compensation Division I college athletes can receive in exchange for their athletic services. Third, an injunction on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Injunctive Relief Class members restraining the NCAA and Conference Defendants from enforcing their unlawful and anticompetitive agreements and rules that restrict the compensation available to Plaintiffs and Injunctive Relief Class members in exchange for their athletic services. Next, the plaintiffs’ demand the payment of attorney fees, costs, and expenses and lastly, for other such relief that the Court may deem just and equitable. It is very likely that this case will be given a jury trial given the legal precedent and ongoing controversy over “pay-for-play” amidst the growth of name, image and likeness in collegiate sports.
Vincent M. Jones Jr. is a recent graduate of Florida State University’s Sports Management Program.
