By Caleb Diaz
The possibility remains that college athletes could be considered employees under federal minimum-wage laws, following a U.S appeals court ruling last week.
The NCAA had sought a definitive ruling to prevent athletes from claiming employee status, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. NCAA declined to make such a determination, instead sending the case back to a lower court for further examination.
The ruling, authored by Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, emphasized that the question at hand is not whether the athletes are owed protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but whether their amateur status inherently precludes them from ever making such a claim. The court’s response was a clear “no,” allowing for further legal exploration of the issue.
“The issue raised by this interlocutory appeal is not whether the athletes before us are actually owed the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but rather, whether college athletes, by nature of their so-called amateur status, are precluded from ever bringing an FLSA claim. Our answer to this question is no,” wrote Judge Restrepo.
Judge Restrepo’s opinion suggests a new framework for determining if college athletes are employees, focusing on the “economic realities” of their relationship with their schools. This approach examines whether athletes perform services primarily for the benefit of their schools, under the schools’ control, and in exchange for compensation or in-kind benefits.
The decision to remand the case to the district court for application of this analysis underscores the complexity and significance of the issue. U.S. District Judge John R. Padova will now have the task of applying these principles to determine if the athletes’ relationships with their schools meet the criteria for employee status under the FLSA.
Potential Legal Ramifications for NCAA and College Sports
This ruling has significant potential legal ramifications for the NCAA and college sports. It challenges the long-standing notion of amateurism and opens the door for athletes to seek compensation similar to other student employees. The NCAA, already under scrutiny from various legal and legislative fronts, faces another critical test of its policies and practices.
Legal experts and advocates for college athletes see this as a pivotal moment that could reshape the landscape of college sports, potentially leading to broader recognition of athletes’ labor rights and changes in how they are compensated and managed.
As the case returns to the lower court, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of college athletics and the NCAA’s regulatory framework.
About Our Author
Caleb Diaz is a member of the Adams and Reese Litigation Practice Group, experienced in sports law, entertainment law, labor and employment, commercial litigation, and insurance law. Caleb’s legal work in NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) has garnered attention from national media outlets, including the Washington Post and ESPN. He has authored articles on NIL deals and the litigation and laws surrounding those deals among corporations, student-athletes, and NCAA rules and regulations. Caleb is admitted to practice in Alabama, Florida, and Texas. Caleb earned his Bachelor of Science from Florida State University in sports management and since has parlayed that passion for sports into his practice of law. He can be reached at caleb.diaz@arlaw.com.
