The idea has been gaining momentum ever since Gary Roberts, the leading expert on the intersection of sports and antitrust law and former dean of the University of Indiana School of Law, suggested the concept before hundreds of attendees of the 2014 Sports Lawyers Association meeting.
Now The Drake Group has put its support behind Congressional passage of an antitrust exemption for college athletics. But the entity wants “only with very specific limitations and conditioned on national governance association and member institution adoption of reforms that would put in place sound, educationally focused athletic programs.
“Absent an antitrust exemption, the NCAA and its member institutions will continue to be the target of antitrust lawsuits whenever they try to implement educationally defensible reforms that have commercial consequences.”
Drake Group President Gerald Gurney, assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma, suggested that multiple purposes could be achieved.
“Congress has a vested interest in protecting funds that support athletic programs and has historically acted to do so by granting tax preferences,” said Gurney. “Tax preferences are reasonable so long as these privileges advance the educational purposes of the athletics activity and controls exist to prevent excesses inappropriate for nonprofit organizations. Similarly, a limited antitrust exemption for athletics is reasonable only so long as this privilege advances educational purpose and prevents excesses.”
The Drake Group is a national organization of faculty and others whose mission “is to defend academic integrity in higher education from the corrosive aspects of commercialized college sports. The Drake Group goals include: (1) ensure that universities provide accountability of trustees, administrators, and faculty by publicly disclosing information about the quality of educations college athletes receive; (2) advance proposals that ensure quality education for students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, (3) support faculty and staff whose job security and professional standing are threatened when they defend academic standards in intercollegiate sports; (4) influence public discourse on current issues and controversies in sports and higher education; and (5) coordinate local and national reform efforts with other groups that share its mission and goals.”
Roberts’ Analysis of Drake Announcement
Roberts shared his opinion with Sports Litigation Alert on the Drake Group announcement.
“Their general analysis may be correct, unless the courts reject the O’Bannon and other similar antitrust cases clearly and decisively, which remains to be seen,” he said. “Assuming the courts do not close this door tightly, I support the recommendation for a limited antitrust exemption. But as always, the devil will be in the details of what the exemption would cover and what its limitations and qualifications would be.”
