Key Points Historically, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (‘NCAA’) has governed intercollegiate competition between US colleges and universities and strictly prohibited student-athlete compensation from schools or third parties to preserve the ‘tradition of amateurism’ in collegiate sports. In recent antitrust litigation (e.g., Alston v NCAA and House v NCAA), US courts have rejected judicial precedent observing the NCAA’s amateurism defense and instead clarified that the business of collegiate sports is commercial in nature and subject to the Sherman Act’s competition rules. Since the US Supreme Court’s holding in Alston and the landmark settlement reached in House, the NCAA has lifted its strict prohibition on student-athlete compensation, and the market for collegiate sports has exploded. The latest developments in US collegiate sports and antitrust law parallel European Union trends expanding the scrutiny of sports under Articles 101 and 102 TEFU and recent decisions finding sports-governing bodies’ eligibility rules violate the law.
Longman et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: