Cases & Developments

Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in Ohio v. Nat’l Collegial Athletics Ass’n. The Department of Justice joined ten states and the District of Columbia in suing the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), challenged NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.1 (“Transfer Eligibility Rule”), which requires a one-year delay in eligibility for certain athletes transferring between institutions, alleging that it “unjustifiably restrains the ability of these college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I athletes.” “The proposed Final Judgment, filed on May 30, 2024, requires the NCAA to refrain from enforcing the offending rules and to restore eligibility to certain affected athletes.” Public comment is due within 60 days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Register.   

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the State of Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as parens patriae on behalf of their student-athletes, brought antitrust claims against the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), asserting that the NCAA’s classification of name, image, and likeness (NIL) collectives as “boosters” that are prohibited from engaging in recruiting activities on behalf of a school, including discussions of potential NIL deals with student-athletes before they commit to a particular school, is “an ‘illegal agreement to restrain and suppress competition’ within the labor market of Division I athletics.” In preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the NCAA rules regarding the “NIL-recruiting ban” and Rule of Restitution, the court ruled that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, finding that (1) the balance between academics and athletics and the distinction between collegiate and professional athletics could be achieved by less restrictive rules, (2) the ban is anticompetitive for student-athletes even if it spreads competition evenly among member institutions, and (3) the social justification of protecting vulnerable students was not relevant to whether the rules are lawful. In finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged irreparable harm, the court noted that the alleged harms of stripping student-athletes of some of their negotiating leverage and keeping them from knowing their full NIL value are not strictly monetary.   

Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs in two related cases, former “volunteer coaches” in multiple sports at Division I universities in California and Arizona, on behalf of themselves and putative classes, brought antitrust and unjust enrichment claims against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, alleging that, as a result of NCAA Bylaw 11.01.06 (repealed in January 2023) permitting schools to add one unpaid coach position, they worked at a rate of compensation below what they would have received in a competitive market. In permitting plaintiffs’ antitrust claims to proceed, the court found under a quick look analysis that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the Bylaw had an anticompetitive effect, noting the large salaries of other coaches and recent increases in those salaries. The court dismissed their unjust enrichment claims, however, noting that the volunteer coaches had not alleged that they worked without contracts.