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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT