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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT