ILNews

New suit alleges NCAA monopoly, seeks class action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A new federal lawsuit has been filed alleging that the Indianapolis-based NCAA constitutes an illegal college sports monopoly.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, John Rock v. the National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1:12-CV-1019, seeks class-action status and demand for a jury trial. John Rock is a former quarterback from Gardner-Webb University whose scholarship was not renewed after a change in coaches at the North Carolina school. Rock claims that he was assured a four-year scholarship as long as he remained eligible.

“The NCAA’s prohibition of multi-year scholarships and limits on the number and amount of athletic scholarships is an illegal restraint that limits the ability of student-athletes to market their services in a free and open market,” according to a statement from Seattle-based Hagens Berman LLP. The firm previously filed a similar unsuccessful claim against the NCAA.

“This suit arises out of a blatant price-fixing agreement and restraint between member institutions” of the NCAA, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit says the NCAA and the more than 1,000 colleges represented in its various divisions conspired to restrain trade by limiting the number of athletics scholarships and multiyear scholarships.

The NCAA did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment. The National Law Journal reported that the NCAA issued this statement:

“The plaintiff has not yet served us with this lawsuit, though we understand media have received it. To that end, we cannot comment specifically. In general terms, it is difficult to imagine why this law firm keeps filing the same tired theories and misleading new groups of student athletes. We will read the new complaint in that light when we see it.”

Attorney Steve Berman filed a prior suit, Agnew v. NCAA, 11-3066, that in June was dismissed by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the District Court’s finding that the plaintiffs’ case did not sufficiently identify a market required to prove a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

“The relevant market is the nationwide market for the labor of student athletes,” Rock’s suit claims. Despite the NCAA’s nonprofit status, the suit says, “full scholarships in exchange for athletic services are not noncommercial, since schools make millions of dollars as a result of these transactions.”

The suit cites Forbes magazine’s estimate that the value of University of Texas’ football program in 2011 was $129 million, with $71 million in profit. It also cites published reports of the cost of recruiting, such as $434,095 the University of Kentucky spent in 2010 to court basketball prospects.

The suit also takes swipes at the NCAA’s “plush” headquarters and “bloated” executive salaries, including NCAA President Mark Emmert’s reported $1.6 million annual pay.    

William Riley and Joseph Williams of the Indianapolis firm Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC are listed as local plaintiff’s counsel in the complaint. An attorney at the firm on Friday referred inquiries to Hagens Berman.

Rock, the suit said, wasn’t formally told that he would lose his scholarship until July 2011, when it was too late for him to attempt to transfer to another school that could provide a football scholarship. Rock paid his way through his final year at Gardner-Webb and graduated this year with a degree in political science, according to the suit.


 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT