Expert Money, Amateur Status: The NCAA’s Slow Evolution Towards Professionalism.

By: Gordon Gibson

In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in NCAA vs. Alston ("Alston") that the NCAA could no longer stop member schools from offering education-related benefits to student athletes. The NCAA quickly deemed that the ruling allowed student athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness, otherwise known as “NIL”. Following the Court’s decision, the NCAA released a four-point guidance on their NIL policy. The four points stated:

  • Individuals can engage in NIL activities that are consistent with the law of the state where the school is located. Colleges and universities may be a resource for state law questions.

  • College athletes who attend a school in a state without an NIL law can engage in this type of activity without violating NCAA rules related to name, image, and likeness.

  • Individuals can use a professional services provider for NIL activities.

  • Student-athletes should report NIL activities consistent with state law or school and conference requirements to their school.

The NCAA intended for the policy to comply with the Court’s holding in Alston and to uphold the amateurism framework championed by the Association . The NCAA had previously fought with athletes for years over NIL, especially under the principle of amateurism. The concept of amateurism is complicated, but the NCAA strictly enforces it. Often, amateurism is defined by what student athletes are not allowed to do. Students are not allowed to accept prize money at a competition. Student athletes tend to criticize the amateurism framework because the NCAA makes over a billion dollars a year off activities using student athletes’ NILs. The NCAA would make all the money, while student athletes received none of the revenue. However, following Alston, the NIL market for student athletes exploded. Donor-backed groups called “collectives” essentially work as agencies that create NIL deals for student athletes. Despite recent expansions in the NIL market, amateurism under the NCAA still restricts what student athletes can or cannot do to remain eligible to compete at an NCAA event.

 

Events at the 2023 U.S. Open exposed the vagueness of the NCAA bylaws. Fiona Crawley, a 21-year-old senior at UNC, qualified for the U.S. Open for her stellar play. Even though Fiona lost in the first round of both singles and doubles tournament play, she earned an $81,000 prize that the NCAA forced her to give up. As a result, Fiona had to choose between her hard-earned five-digit winnings, or her eligibility as an NCAA athlete. Fiona was compelled to make this decision because of the NCAA’s amateurism rules and its prohibition of professional athletes.

 

The NCAA defines a professional athlete as “one who receives any kind of payment, directly or indirectly, for athletics participation except as permitted by the governing legislation of the Association.” According to these “permitted” rules, players can take a certain amount of money, while remaining an amateur, only if it comes from a sponsor of the event. The NCAA manual for the 2023-2024 year is 449 pages in total. These regulations are long and complicated. If a student athlete violated these rules, even without knowing their full extent, the student athlete would no longer be able to compete in any NCAA events. On top of this, if the student athlete wanted to gain back their amateur status, the process for restoration is extremely difficult and requires valuable time and effort. Fiona also had to make this decision despite other NIL deals which essentially gave other student athletes the opportunity to make professional wages. The only distinction between Fiona and these other student athletes is that the NCAA prohibits players from taking compensation for their performance on the court or field, but taking compensation from their NIL is allowed.

 

While it may seem unfair that the NCAA did not allow Fiona to cash out on her impressive effort at the U.S. Open, it is unlikely that this fact pattern will not be repeated. The line between professionalism and amateurism will continue to blur as more people test the NCAA’s regulations, especially with NIL laws being controlled in large by state law. The NCAA is unlikely to change its amateurism requirements, as historically the NCAA has had an intense focus on amateurism in its framework for membership. The NCAA’s main goal is to facilitate competition between student athletes, and the Association has worried for years that a change in the amateurism rules would ruin this motive. It seems like the NCAA has associated the term, “for the love of the game,” as personifying its student athletes’ motive for competing rather than acknowledging that a student athlete’s ability to receive compensation could also be a motivation for competing. NCAA critics have explained that amateurism and NIL as an extension of amateurism is just a ploy for schools to not pay student athletes.

 

All that being said, it is likely that none of these amateurism and NIL regulations will change any time soon. The NCAA, and everyone involved, seems to be waiting on federal and state legislatures to make the tough, regulatory decisions for them. Whether trying to maximize profits or truly keeping the college sports realm pure from the “wrongful” motivation of money, the NCAA is likely going to stop student athletes like Fiona from enjoying their hard-earned winnings.

Previous
Previous

The Legal and Financial Implications of Twitter’s Rebrand to “X”

Next
Next

The Future of Generative AI and Copyright Law