Writing as a columnist for Forbes.com, Dr. Thomas Baker, a sports law professor at the University of Georgia, took issue with a decision by a panel of judges at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld a district court decision that protected the NCAA’s transfer rules from antitrust law.
See Jackson Lewis article above for background.
Peter Deppe (the plaintiff) “lost, and that’s unfortunate because Monday’s ruling from the Seventh Circuit extends a line of cases that distort antitrust law so as to preserve the NCAA’s status quo. Worse yet, the decision represents a significant change of direction within the Seventh Circuit in antitrust cases involving the NCAA.
“To appreciate why the decision is both flawed and regressive, it’s first important to understand the legal basis for the Seventh Circuit’s ruling,” Dr. Baker continued. “Antitrust law prohibits competitors from entering into agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. So, an agreement among NCAA members to restrict student-athlete transfers should violate antitrust law unless the restriction actually enhances competition. The Seventh Circuit found a pro-competitive reason in the preservation of consumer interest in the NCAA sports that are subject to the rule.
“In doing so, the Seventh Circuit aligned its decision with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma et al. (1984). In Board of Regents, Justice Stevens used the preservation of amateurism in NCAA athletics as an example for why antitrust law should tolerate some degree of cooperation among competitors in creating sports leagues. This is a legal recognition that NCAA members must cooperate on some restrictions in order to create intercollegiate athletics. All rules essential to league creation are therefore pro-competitive because intercollegiate athletics provide consumers with an alternative to professional sports leagues (e.g., the NFL and the NBA).”
Dr. Baker continued his attack.
“Yet even if we pretend that preserving amateurism is essential to the existence of intercollegiate athletics, Monday’s unanimous decision from the Seventh Circuit still lacks a legal foundation and deviates from the circuit’s previous decision in Agnew v. NCAA (2012),” he wrote. “In Agnew, the Seventh Circuit took a step toward protecting student rights by rejecting the idea that all NCAA ‘eligibility rules’ were presumed valid based on Justice Stevens’ reasoning. Instead, the court in Agnew limited the presumption to cover only those rules that implicate an athlete’s status as an amateur. In this case, the residency rule is not needed to preserve amateurism because it does not concern athlete compensation. The Seventh Circuit, however, seemingly regressed back to a line of federal circuit cases that exempt all NCAA ‘eligibility rules’ from antitrust’s reach.
“The residency rule is an eligibility rule in that it purportedly provides a period of time before eligibility so that transferring athletes may settle into their new academic environments. While that’s a lovely idea, it’s pretext because if the NCAA really cared about the academic integration of its students, it wouldn’t allow them to be pulled out of classes for mid-week competitions.
“Even if we were to ignore all of that and accept the residency rule as an eligibility rule, the legal problem remains in that the rule is not essential to the creation of college athletics. For that reason alone, the Seventh Circuit’s decision is without legal merit and represents a change in course from Agnew.”
The full article can be viewed at decision/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/.
