Search for a command to run...
“How should student-athletes get paid?” This is the next big question in the intercollegiate sport industry. While the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) fights relentlessly to protect the amateurism of intercollegiate athletics, public pressure continues to mount for establishing a method of paying student-athletes beyond scholarships and educational expenses. There are two compensation methods frequently discussed by the media, fans and practitioners in the industry: 1) compensating student-athletes through the university, or 2) compensating student-athletes through their name, image and likeness (NIL). Method I gives rise to legal issues pertaining to Title IX, Fair Labor Standards Act, worker’s compensation, vicarious liability, taxation issues, and antitrust issues. Title IX accommodation would obligate universities to provide equal pay and opportunities for both male and female student-athletes. Further, the Fair Labor Standards Act would require institutions to comply with minimum wage and overtime pay standards. Comparatively, workers’ compensation would force universities to provide monetary awards to student-athletes who are injured, disabled or killed during work related to their employment (i.e., athletic participation). If student-athletes were considered university employees, the theory of vicarious liability would hold universities accountable for the tortious actions of their student-athletes while in the scope of their work. If the schools were to compensate student-athletes, the NCAA and athletics departments would potentially lose their tax-exempt status, which would result in further financial concerns in the industry. Finally, antitrust issues would likely prohibit the NCAA from price-fixing any student-athlete stipends unless a formal collective bargaining agreement with players was organized. Method II brings forth legal issues pertaining to the First Amendment, intellectual property, and the Fourteenth Amendment. While athletics administrations have a history of regulating student athletes’ free speech, universities would need to re-evaluate regulatory guidelines pertaining to student-athletes’ self-expression in advertisements and endorsements. Guidelines and/or restrictions must also be established for student-athletes’ potential use of university trademarks in advertisements and endorsements. In light of amateur eligibility requirements, student-athletes’ rights to participation may be at issue. Precedent has established that participation in athletics is a privilege; however when student-athletes receive monetary benefits (e.g., scholarship), a property interest is formed. Therefore, if student athletes are permitted to profit from their NIL, eligibility by-laws will need to be reformed. The purpose of this paper is to analyze relevant constitutional, statutory, and case law, as well as NCAA regulations, pertaining to the issue of paying intercollegiate student-athletes. The paper concludes with a recommendation advising the NCAA to use Method II, which recommends the reformation of the amateurism and athletic eligibility rules found in Article 12, education of member institutions regarding their role in student-athlete compensation for their NIL, and education of student-athletes on the use of their NIL and restrictions pertaining to trademarks and copyrights. This proposed model seeks to compensate student-athletes while protecting the legal interests of the NCAA, universities, and student-athlete body.