II. NCAA Amateurism rule and the problems with it
The NCAA was established on the principles of keeping collegiate athletics on the amateur level. This meant that no one could play on programs on collegiate level with people from professional teams or other leagues. The NCAA argues that amateurism is necessary to preserve academic integrity and ensure that receiving a quality education is a top priority (Treadway, 2013). Since the beginning of NCAA and intercollegiate athletics, amateurism has been considered the backbone principle of the NCAA. Throughout time, the NCAA has altered and expanded the definition of amateurism to accommodate its standards. Many debate that those reasons for the benefit of the NCAA and no one else. In 1916,
…show more content…
This altered the definition by allowing financial aid awards based on athletic ability. It allowed universities to recruit solely on talent and pay tuition for school. It did not cover room and board, but was only a clear attempt to regulate illegal activity per the bylaws and still ban full athletic scholarship. (Kahn, 2006). It was abandoned in 1952 since many institutions already awarded athletic scholarships although it was …show more content…
The showed how rule of reason can be used as it pertains to NCAA. This case shows how courts have found it a necessity of preserve the amateurism principle of intercollegiate sports, thus attempting to protect the NCAA. The NCAA has faced a number of challenges to its rules under the Sherman Act. The NCAA is a cartel made in existence specifically to exploited college athletes and make a profit. The amateurism principle of the NCAA needs to be reestablished. The NCAA rarely has lost in the courts. It has been getting away with illegal practices for years by holding hostage to amateurism principles it was founded on. Thirty years after the NCAA v. Board of Regents court decision, the NCAA’s hand was forced when Ed O’Bannon and Same Keller took their concern to higher court.
The plaintiffs filed and consolidated their complaint in 2009 claiming antitrust violations and misappropriations of student athlete’s likenesses. The court ruled that the NCAA cannot prohibit student-athlete compensation for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, and at the same time did not state that the NCAA had to compensate student athletes. So, to keep from compensating athletes from video game revenue or any other licensing right that they had for their likeness, the NCAA simply removed licensing rights (Gross, 2016). Another lose-win for the