A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the NCAA from enforcing its bans on recruits who sign cash contracts with booster groups. This was a major blow to the NCAA's attempts to stop universities and their supporters from paying athletes to play at their schools.
The idea of amateurism has long been a core principle of the NCAA, but Judge Clifton L. Corker said a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general in Tennessee and Virginia had enough merit to prevent college sports regulators from accepting prospects who sign their names to impose restrictions on Image and Likeness (NIL) deals before participating in programs. The court order applies to all athletes in all states and takes effect immediately.
GO DEEPER
Mandel: The party is over, NCAA. Pay-for-play recruiting is here, and it was inevitable
The injunction is not a final ruling in the case, but the judge's decision will almost certainly open the floodgates for more recruits to sign NIL deals nationwide without fear of repercussions. Since NIL laws went into effect in various states in 2021, the NCAA has attempted to defend and enforce its own policies aimed at limiting the use of NIL deals to entice recruits to sign with a particular program , and the basic idea that college athletes should not be paid based on their athletic performance.
“The NCAA’s ban likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes,” Corker wrote in his decision.
Saquandra Heath, an NCAA spokeswoman, said in a statement that the judge's decision will complicate the rules landscape for college sports.
“Reversing the rules, which member schools overwhelmingly support, will exacerbate an already chaotic collegiate environment and further weaken student-athletes’ protections from exploitation,” Heath said. “The NCAA fully supports student-athletes making money off their name, image and likeness and is making changes to provide more benefits to student-athletes, but an endless patchwork of state laws and court opinions make it clear that a partnership with Congress is necessary to ensure stability for the future of all college athletes.”
NCAA rules currently allow enrolled athletes to enter into NIL contracts with both individual boosters and collectives, which are groups of boosters that pool resources before signing athletes to contracts. The NCAA does not allow prospective athletes – whether high school athletes or transfer athletes – to sign such contracts because it believes it is an incentive to recruit athletes.
On Jan. 31, the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia jointly filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court against the NCAA, challenging the organization's ban on using incentives in recruiting. The lawsuit came the day after it was announced that the NCAA was investigating the recruiting activities of the University of Tennessee and Spyre Sports Group – a collective unofficially affiliated with Volunteers Athletics – particularly related to five-star prospect Nico Iamaleava, who is finally enrolled in Tennessee in January 2023.
Tom Mars, an attorney who worked with the Tennessee collective on the case, said the importance of the order cannot be overstated.
“As this is the first domino to fall, what happens in the other pending antitrust cases now seems almost inevitable. And the NCAA lawyers need to know that,” Mars said.
The NCAA previously responded to the lawsuit by arguing that states had no reason to temporarily suspend NCAA rules, in part because Tennessee's own state laws prohibit NIL incentives in recruiting. The NCAA has also argued that the purpose of a court's injunctive relief is to maintain the status quo and that the NCAA's rules are already the status quo.
Earlier this month, Corker suggested that an injunction might not be necessary, but said the states would likely win their case against the NCAA. Corker wrote in Friday's court decision: “While the NCAA permits student-athletes to benefit from its zero value, it is impossible to see how the timing of a student-athlete entering into such an agreement achieves the goal of preserving amateurism.” would destroy.”
The judge agreed with the NCAA in its contention that maintaining competitive balance was a legitimate endeavor, but said that extending competition evenly to NCAA member schools “through restraint of trade” was “precisely the type of anticompetitive conduct” that is attempts to prevent antitrust law.
Friday's court order represents another crack in the foundation of the NCAA, which has fought for its future on multiple fronts and in countless courtrooms in a legal environment that has never been friendlier to its challengers.
After a setback in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021, the NCAA faced multiple lawsuits accusing the organization of violating federal antitrust laws. They're still working their way through different dishes. The governing body of college sports has also faced cases in which its rules have been individually challenged.
In December, the attorneys general of seven states, including Ohio, challenged an NCAA rule that prohibits athletes from playing immediately after multiple substitutions. After obtaining an injunction to prevent the NCAA from enforcing the rule, the NCAA agreed to convert the order to an injunction allowing all multiple transfers to play without suspension through the end of the academic year.
The NCAA is also the subject of a complaint and unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act, a case that raises questions about whether athletes should be classified as employees. A hearing is scheduled for next week in Los Angeles.
As NCAA lawyers continue to argue for the organization's longstanding business model, Friday's order creates an entirely new legal environment in the recruiting space. Athletes and their representatives can now meet and sign contracts with associations without fear of an NCAA investigation or possible loss of future eligibility. Although the injunction is temporary in nature, it will likely result in a dramatic increase in NIL deals offered to high school recruits and players in the transfer portal to entice athletes to sign with a particular school. Before Friday, NCAA rules allowed coaches and associations to share information about a prospect's potential earning power, but they could not sign prospects to contracts before enrolling. That is no longer the case.
The NCAA has been trying for several years to use its dilemmas in the courts and statehouses to lobby Congress for federal legislation to protect the way college sports operate. NCAA leaders want protection from antitrust scrutiny, uniformity in NIL laws and a strict declaration that athletes are not employees. There were numerous legislative proposals and a double-digit number of hearings, but no bill made it out of committee.
Several senators and representatives have publicly stated that cleaning up the chaos in the NCAA is not a major priority.
Additional reading:
(Photo: Mitchell Layton/Getty Images)