Search

College sports are in a state of logistical chaos. How did we get here? Where do we go next? What does the future of college sports look like? The driving force behind much of this uncertainty is the demise of amateurism at the Division I level of competition. The National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") has struggled to define what makes a college athlete an "amateur" since its inception. Over time--and under the NCAA's purported control--the line between amateur and professional athletes has become increasingly blurred. The NCAA's failure to maintain the amateur model at the Division I level poses a substantial threat to the NCAA in the context of antitrust litigation. Antitrust challenges to the NCAA's amateurism rules constitute a highly contested topic for all stakeholders of college sports: the players, the coaches, the fans, etc. This Note explores the loss of amateurism in Division I sports and the resulting scrutiny the NCAA has faced, especially in recent years. Approaching this issue with an antitrust lens, this Note illustrates how the NCAA's amateurism rules are evaluated by the courts and suggests why a court would no longer find the NCAA's amateurism defense to antitrust claims viable, at least at the Division I level. Throughout this piece, the Note critiques the NCAA's responses to the evolving landscape of collegiate sports, thus calling for a new method of oversight to preserve what is left of amateurism. This Note argues that amateurism is still intact at the Division II and III levels of competition, but steps must be taken in the near future to protect these programs and this sense of amateurism from the imminent changes to the college sports enterprise. Accordingly, this Note offers potential solutions to avoid the loss of amateurism and insulate Division II and III programs from impending cost-cutting measures. To conclude, this Note highlights what a loss of amateurism altogether could mean for future NCAA athletes as well as consumers of the college sports product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student-athlete compensation has been a consistent topic of controversy over the past few years, as critics question the legitimacy of the NCAA’s notion of amateurism and proponents favor the status quo. The Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston has only served to intensify the debate, opening the door to alternative compensation structures. Despite a unanimous ruling in favor of the athletes, the limited holding of the case has only produced further questions. In his scathing concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh raises one such question: how does a student-athlete compensation structure comply with Title IX? This Comment seeks to address that question by analyzing two possible compensation regimes and their compatibility with Title IX. Student-athlete compensation has been a consistent topic of controversy over the past few years, as critics question the legitimacy of the NCAA’s notion of amateurism and proponents favor the status quo. The Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston has only served to intensify the debate, opening the door to alternative compensation structures. Despite a unanimous ruling in favor of the athletes, the limited holding of the case has only produced further questions. In his scathing concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh raises one such question: how does a student-athlete compensation structure comply with Title IX? This Comment seeks to address that question by analyzing two possible compensation regimes and their compatibility with Title IX. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its role as the governing body of collegiate athletics in the United States, the NCAA imposes rules that regulate both the behavior of its member-institutions and of college athletes themselves. Historically, courts have divided these rules into two groups: rules governing the commercial aspects of sport and rules that enforce the amateur nature of college athletics. Thus, rules concerning television-rights contracting are distinguished from those rules regulating the size of a soccer field or when a student-athlete is eligible to play. When NCAA rules have been challenged as violations of U.S. antitrust law, courts applying the standard rule-of-reason antitrust analysis have often found an anticompetitive effect. But where amateurism rules are concerned, a subset of circuit courts have withheld a rigorous application of the rule of reason and allowed NCAA regulations to stand under the "presumption of procompetitiveness" doctrine. In May 2020, in Alston v. NCAA, the Ninth Circuit applied the rule of reason and struck down NCAA limits on athlete compensation through socalled "grant-in-aid," the scholarship packages that colleges and universities provide to athletes. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit a year later, confirming its holding and underlying analytical framework. These decisions did not directly reach the presumption of procompetitiveness applied by the Seventh Circuit and other courts when reviewing NCAA amateurism rules. This Note, however, argues that the Supreme Court's stated preference for applying the rule of reason, and the NCAA's own slippery definition of "amateurism," strongly suggest that the presumption of procompetitiveness mistakenly lowers the level of scrutiny that NCAA regulations receive from courts. This Note concludes that amateurism cannot justify a light-touch approach to any NCAA rules. Thus, conformity with the law, and fairness to the position of student-athletes, requires that all NCAA rules be examined under the traditional rule-of-reason framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the right of publicity of National Collegiate Athletics Administration (NCAA) student athletes. Topics mentioned include the status of an alienable right of publicity, the emergence of the right of privacy to benefit the publicity-holder and not protecting the identity-holder, the amateurism rules of NCAA, and some proposals to solve the alienability of the right of publicity.

Youth is passionate about sports, and they want to win. The performance of the players is crucial to the team's success. The members of the team with mental and social issues function less effectively. As a result of their problems, the professionalism of the Iraqi footballers has declined. This study seeks to determine the role of perceived enjoyment as a mediator between psychological and social mobilizers and attitudes toward sports activities in Iraq. This study is predicated on the quantitative data acquired from Iraqi players from various teams. 800 questionnaires were issued for data collection, and the response rate was fifty percent. This study's findings are determined using the PLS structural and measurement models. This study aimed to improve Iraqi athletes' attitudes toward sporting activities. The study concludes that perceived enjoyment influences the relationship between psychological and social mobilizers and attitudes toward sports activities. The addition of the current model to the body of knowledge is substantial. This report also includes highly suggested recommendations for increasing players' performance in Iraq by fostering a good attitude about the game. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]