The Jenkins, et al. v. NCAA case centers around the idea that the value a student-athlete brings to the school is capped at the amount of his or her scholarship, and the amount of money they bring into the school far exceeds this amount. Jenkins argues that this is illegal and violates federal antitrust laws. The complaint says that the NCAA and the Power Five conferences make billions of dollars off football and basketball players “who perform services” for the universities. This notion of whether players are exploited is the same as we discussed on Thursday in class. The complaint says that the universities do not sign contracts with the best interests of their student-athletes in mind and those athletes are unable to receive any portion of that revenue. Without the athletes, this revenue would not exist.
Possible stories:
- Sport vs. service: How do we differentiate the two? Do college athletes perceive their athletic careers are furthering their involvement with sports or as providing a service in exchange for a scholarship?
- How do the athletes of non-revenue sports feel about cases like this?
- Breaking down the compensation athletes get in the form of tuition, cost-of-living stipends, housing, food, etc. This would help pinpoint how athletes are currently valued.
- Any chances that more schools will try to unionize?
- What percent of student-athletes give more value to their university than the university gives to them in the form of scholarship? It’s got to be tiny.
- How would the culture of college sports change if athletes could be paid?