ILNews

Plaintiffs fail to prove NCAA violated Sherman Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court in dismissing a lawsuit two former college athletes brought against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

The men, Joseph Agnew and Patrick Courtney, both received one-year scholarships to play football at NCAA schools, with the caveat that the scholarships must be renewed annually. When injuries they sustained prevented them from playing, their schools chose to not renew their scholarships.

In Joseph Agnew v. NCAA, No. 11-3066, the men claimed that the NCAA policies capping the number of scholarships per school and prohibiting multi-year scholarships had an anticompetitive effect on the market for student athletes and therefore violate the Sherman Act. The NCAA filed a motion to dismiss, and finding the plaintiffs did not sufficiently identify a commercial market, the District Court dismissed the suit.

The NCAA argued that the plaintiffs did not identify any market, including a bachelor’s degree or labor market, in which its bylaws restrained trade. And the 7th Circuit panel found that the difference between a market for educational services and a market for a bachelor’s degree was of vital importance in the case, holding that a student is owed educational instruction upon payment of tuition, but whether that instruction leads to a degree is up to the student.

The 7th Circuit held that it is undeniable that a market of some sort exists in the relationship of student athletes and the university issuing scholarships based on athletic performance. But the plaintiffs presented no discussion about a relevant market for student athlete labor, even after having an opportunity to amend their complaint. The appellate panel affirmed the District Court’s finding that without identifying a cognizable market, the men failed to prove the NCAA’s policies violate the Sherman Act.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Wrong
    "7th Circuit holds NCAA did not violate Sherman Act." That is absolutely NOT what the court held. All it concluded was that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim.

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT