The NCAA argues that the contested rules are needed to "maintain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports." But the lawsuits underscore the fact that collegiate sports have turned into a big business.
"What it comes down to is that the coach is making money, the schools are making money but the players are severely restricted," said Daniel E. Lazaroff, director of Loyola University's Sports Law Institute. "What the plaintiffs are arguing is that caps aren't reasonably necessary, that they're really an artificial attempt at cost-containment."
Ironically, former athletes who filed the suit in Los Angeles count Brand as a supporter. The NCAA president has said he favors bigger grants that could help athletes cover gas money, phone bills and other expenses. But the NCAA's member institutions that set the rules Brand is paid to enforce say otherwise.
NCAA defenders view the lawsuit as a "pay-for-play" bid by greedy athletes, but Ellen Staurowsky, a professor of sports management at Ithaca College, disagrees. "The idea of a free ride is a myth," she said. "That's why I find this case so compelling. It's not just an individual athlete or a couple of dissatisfied athletes who are just in it for the money. They're arguing ... from a perspective of fundamental fairness."
The other lawsuit, filed in 2004 by former walk-on football players at a handful of universities, portrays the NCAA as an illegal cartel that arbitrarily limits the number of grants. The former athletes moved a step closer to a trial last year when a judge refused the NCAA's request to have the lawsuit tossed out.
Though it is jarring, it isn't uncommon for such phrases as "illegal cartel," "price-fixing" and "collusion" to be used in conjunction with the NCAA. Athletes have frequently challenged the NCAA's strict amateurism rules, but the organization's business practices also have come under attack.
In 1984, the NCAA lost a landmark antitrust case that was sparked by a lucrative television broadcast rights contract. A few years later, the association paid more than $50 million to assistant coaches who sued over an NCAA salary cap. Last year, the NCAA settled an antitrust case by paying $56.5 million to acquire the competing National Invitation Tournament. The NCAA also has been sued over policies governing what tournaments teams can enter and what summer training camps athletes can attend.
