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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT