The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the NCAA’s motion to dismiss Johnson v. NCAA last week, sending the case back to district court to determine whether — and which —college athletes are employees.
Former Villanova football player Ralph “Trey” Johnson is leading a group of Division I athletes (representing football, swimming, diving, baseball, soccer, and tennis) who argue that they should be compensated at minimum wage, just like their classmates who work concessions or tickets at games where the players aren’t paid. Notably, the plaintiffs are not pushing for market rates or the right to unionize.
Johnson v. NCAA is now back in the hands of U.S. District Judge John Padova, who will apply an economic realities analysis to decide whether college athletes are employees. The Third Circuit instructed Padova to classify college athletes as employees if they (a) perform services for another party, (b) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit, (c) under the college’s control or right of control and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.” Based on his previous rulings, where he noted that college athletes fill out timesheets and fuel a multibillion-dollar industry, Padova is expected to ultimately rule against the NCAA.
Last week’s Third Circuit ruling included a notable concurring opinion from Judge David Porter. He wrote that college football and basketball players likely qualify as employees, but other college athletes probably do not meet that standard. For example, Porter compared the different economic relationships between the quarterback of a Power Four football team and a bowler at a Conference USA school.
Porter criticized the majority Third Circuit opinion because it provided “no guidance about how courts or factfinders applying an economic-reality test should consider student-athlete participation in none-revenue sports. He also questioned whether non-revenue athletes are “part of the business of a college university.”
As a joint employer, the NCAA would have to cover costs of employees if individual schools cannot bear the financial burden. While pleading for a Congressional exemption from antitrust law earlier this year, new NCAA president Charlie Baker warned that a loss in the Johnson case could result in two-thirds of all college athletic teams being eliminated — a point that is disputed, however, by the plaintiffs.
“If you convert all of college sports into employment, there is simply no doubt, based on math, that you will lose an enormous number of student-athlete opportunities,” said Baker, who suggested that schools having the ability to buy athletes’ NIL rights is a better alternative than employment. “The money is just not there. Most schools lose money on sports.”
Who decides if it’s a full time, part time, or unpaid intern? These athletes are getting more than a scholarship from the universities with the extra resources. I mean, cmon, you get a scholarship for sport? A scholarship for doing something that is purely for pleasure? Let’s get some perspective on life. They can do many other things besides sport if they feel it is not a good opportunity financially like idk, getting a real job? Is there any organization where people feel they are adequately compensated? No, everyone thinks they are worth more. Let’s stop with entitlement culture
I got a bad feeling about swimming and diving programs if this passes.
I blame the NCAA for not figuring it out on how to evolve over the years to be a more sustainable and fair model. The reckoning is going to come all at once now.
Looks like athletes will become taxpayers. Universities will now need to determine how to navigate how these athletes will be paid and subsequent healthcare/benefits.
Are current college athletes/coaches in non-revenue sports like swimming creating a petition or speaking out on this ruling or just sitting by and waiting to see what happens?
What will speaking out or creating a petition do? It’s abundantly clear that athletes in revenue generating sports should be considered employees and should be compensated for the revenue that they generate. People have seen this coming for decades, and any attempts to fight it are futile at this point. It’s crazy that the whole “student athlete” thing has held up for as long as it has.
Does a scholarship that in some cases is worth $250k plus not have any value? Or have we completely removed the actual reason athletes are attending a certain institution?
That is a question that is yet to be answered.
Clearly it has some value. The issue is that students can get the same scholarships for academic merit and still get paid as university employees as research or teaching assistants. I pay nothing for college but get paid a decent wage as an RA, and there’s no way that I’m bringing in as much revenue to my school as our starting quarterback. It just doesn’t make sense that students can get scholarships and get paid by the university for their academic merit while athletes can’t get paid for their athletic merit. The big 10 will make over $1 billion next year and won’t have to pay the main contributors to that any wages. The NCAA did this to themselves. It… Read more »
As a parent currently paying college tuition, the idea that you think academic scholarships exist even remotely in number to athletic ones, is discouraging. Merit scholarships are about as plentiful as unicorns.
Where did I say that academic scholarships are as prevalent as athletic scholarships? All I said is that it doesn’t make sense that students that earn scholarships for whatever reason can be employed based on academic merit and not on athletic merit. Especially when some of these athletes are bringing in way more money than research assistants do
We have removed the reason why people attend schools in the 1st place.
House gets all the press, but this one might actually be a much bigger deal. This could lead to a world where you’re either an employed student-athlete or a member of club sport, nothing in between. If that’s the case, college swimming as we know it is done. Very few universities are going to employ swimmers.
Ive said it for the last fifteen years and I will say it again. Congress needs to amend the ASA to require schools accepting federal funds (pretty much all of them) to have a set percentage of the athletic budget to Olympic Sports. That or infuse several billion a year into the USOC per year and pass it out based upon merit.
This would go over super well with the American taxpayer
So government supported and mandated sport? No thanks
Sport is already government supported and mandated.
Not to the toon if billions a year. How much does US gov spend a year?
Yep. Sadly, many cheering this on are digging their own grave. If anyone thinks that schools are going to pay an additional $5-$10 grand in wages (minimum) per athlete in wages on top of program costs for non-revenue sports you are living in delusion.