Jenkins

This case pits the NCAA against its student-athletes who say that they are being exploited in just the pure practice of them playing the sport and everything that comes out of it. As others have said, there are some anti-trust laws potentially coming into play, and while the NCAA wasn’t established under the same pretenses that others who must follow these laws, the argument is there and at the center of the case that it operates like one of these organizations.

Story ideas:

I’m always interested in the people aspect of any story, so I’d talk to Jenkins and Johnathan Moore as well as the other plaintiffs to learn about and detail their personal exeperiences, why they feel spurned, and the origins of the lawsuit and what it means to them in their own words.

The legal aspect and ramifications are obviously a big part of this, as they are with any high-profile case, especially where an establishment is challenged.

The lawyers arguing on behalf of the NCAA are in a very interesting position, and I wonder if you could get them to at least see the other side on record, or if they are steadfast in pushing the NCAA’s cause regardless of any beliefs or feelings they might have.

A research on legal precedent for the case would be prescient and provide a good backdrop as well as peel back whether or not the plaintiffs have a case at all and under which statutes it could be ruled under as well as any that might changed should the case be ruled in their favor.

Jenkins vs. NCAA

I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me the root issue of the Jenkins vs. NCAA case is the classic argument that the NCAA is exploiting its athletes. The four athletes who serve as plantiffs in the class-action lawsuit claim that they should be compensated because they generate an extreme amount of revenue for the NCAA and that the NCAA holds little interest in maintaining their amateurism as STUDENT-athletes. The case then goes into defining the terms, allegations, etc.

I think there are a lot of interesting stories that could stem from this. Should college athletes be paid is an age-old debate that always sparks interest, but that is the obvious route. This case could call into question the rules set for playing in professional leagues. To enter the NFL, players must play in college for three years. If an athlete does not have the financial means to do so, they could be missing out on an opportunity, likewise with basketball players.

Another interesting discussion that could stem from this case is whether the NCAA or the schools should profit the most from ticket sales, television deals, etc. If individual schools profited as much as the NCAA did, many schools could afford facility renovations, more staff, etc.

Jenkins v. NCAA

Summary:
- Martin Jenkins, Kevin Perry and William Tyndall are suing the NCAA and it’s conferences based on the claim that college athletes are being exploited and not compensated for the amount of money they’re bringing to the school and athletic program. They are not seeking damages, but rather an injunction that would allow a free market for college athletes to get paid. The plaintiffs’ argument is that these young athletes are bringing in so much revenue for their schools, but are not receiving any of it. In other words, Jenkins is suing the NCAA for exploiting athletes. One very important point that these plaintiffs made was that one of the vital reasons the NCAA is working to keep amateurism is because the amounts of money that they would have to hand over to a student who’s only 18, 19, 20 years old. But no matter how much, it was still that player or those players’ who generated it.

Potential Story Ideas:
- A story about how college sports would be if athletes were getting paid
  - Would they stay in college longer? Draining talent in the NFL
  - How would you decide who gets paid and how much?
  - Would it kill the nature of college sports?
  - How would college students spend that amount of money?
  - Would they still get full athletic scholarships?
  - May create tension on a team if player(s) feel they aren’t being paid enough or if they feel as if their teammate is being paid too much
- A story about why college amateurism is important for student athletes
- Another good story idea would be to hypothetically estimate how much college athletes would get if they were allowed to receive compensation
  - Ex: If college athletes could get paid, Nick Chubb would be making ______ a week.
  - It would take a lot of extensive research and data collection
  - A good way to measure one players’ worth vs. another

Jenkins v. NCAA and potential stories

The Jenkins v. NCAA case centers itself on the hot-button issue of compensating student-athletes for their participation. Early on in the complaint, Jenkins brings up the point that these athletes, such as UTEP’s Kevin Perry, have their remunerations restrained by “artificial restraints” that are dependent on the athletes’ school of choice. What’s not restrained, however, is the financial benefits these particular universities or schools see as a result of the athlete’s play on the court or field. The argument is that these players have essentially signed on to “cartel agreements” and therefore violate antitrust laws.

I think it’s important to also remember that it’s not just football players involved in this case, as Rutgers basketball player J.J. Moore is also named as a party involved.

Potential story ideas

A look at how much the schools of the specific players mentioned in this complaint made from their respective sport
Catching up with those involved in Northwestern’s attempt to unionize. What would they have done differently? Do they foresee any change that will allow a team to successfully unionize?
A profile on a current athlete such as Perry and Moore that features a log of their hours during a typical week in a season. How much time is left for the academic aspect of their lives?
In basketball, how many athletes would forego college basketball if the NBA allowed? How many athletes in that situation cite financial concerns as a major motivating factor?

Complaint Summary

Yay law!

The gist of this case is a fairly simple, albeit broad, allegation that the NCAA and Power Conferences operate as a price-fixing cartel. This would mean that the defendants would be in violation of the Sherman Act and liable for breaking federal antitrust laws that prohibit price-fixing and anti-competitive practices. The plaintiffs in the case are Division I football and basketball players who received full athletic scholarships to NCAA universities, as well as two classes of football and basketball players who are in comparable situations. Plaintiffs assert that defendants engaged in anti-competitive behavior by setting caps on the amount of compensation an athlete could receive for his services (full grant in aid) and took part in conspiracy, as there was not another reasonable forum where these athletes could provide said services for compensation. The defendants then make billions of dollars from the performances and related activities of the plaintiffs.

I see a ton of stories from this case, many of which have been explored by journalists in the past. One point particularly strikes me, though. The plaintiffs claim that NCAA price-fixing eliminates competitive behavior because schools cannot offer more than full grants in aid to their athletes, but these practices have not worked because certain conferences (SEC) still dominate in championship events. So I think a story might be getting the schools’ perspective. Do they want to eliminate NCAA regulations and have the freedom to offer recruits large sums of money to play? What about lesser-known Division I schools that may not have the prestige in football or basketball?

I also think it would be interesting to hear the Ivy League’s take on this whole controversy. What do its member schools use to recruit athletes when they are not able to offer athletic scholarships? How do NCAA regulations indirectly affect their programs?

Jenkins case

The case goes over history of NCAA violations with antitrust laws, what schools can and cannot offer to students and recruits, specifics about awards/losing amateur status, it goes over over bowl games, and NFL/NBA eligibility to name a few.

It then goes into how these athletes could never truly be compensated monetarily for what their schools and the NCAA have benefitted from using their talents.

Jenkins is arguing that athletes should receive compensation for the work they put in and that the current athletic scholarship model hinders that.

As far as potential stories go, the fact that only a handful of schools from the power five conferences win national championships is a big one. Another avenue to explore is recruiting and how much of it is done under the table and how the NCAA could be better at policing it.

Another story, obviously, is the compensation of athletes, which I whole heartedly disagree with. While I see the point the case makes that some of these athletes will never have a professional career post-college, I still believe that in order to have an amateur status, college athletes should not be paid. If they were, anarchy would ensue.

It’s not fair if you pay a basketball player more than a runner. And then contracts would be negotiated, agents would get involved, and athletes would go from high school to the “corporate world” right away and more often than not, not know how to handle it. College prepares athletes for the pro-world.

Jenkins

The Jenkins, et al. v. NCAA case brings to light the issue of paying student-athletes. The case is in light of the rise in schools profiting off of student-athletes’ success such as video games, apparel, etc. It is an issue that is very prevalent in my life as a student-athlete but remains controversial when you consider what student-athletes are given to compensate their involvement.

Story ideas:

What/Who are the most bought college player apparel?
Amateur status and how much athletes are missing out on their winnings. EX: If an athlete wins Olympic trials and doesn’t take the earnings, how much are they missing out on?
Can non-revenue sport athletes survive at being professional with the income they get? vs. College degree?

Jenkins case and possible stories

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?