CHICAGO — As the NCAA’s current model continues to face litigation under anti-trust laws, a proposed long-term solution is to treat college athletes akin to their Olympic counterparts.
But until the next domino falls in a California courtroom, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany called any major changes “premature.”
Former Clemson football player Martin Jenkins is the lead plaintiff in an ongoing case against the NCAA, and the lawsuit contends the NCAA’s scholarship system is an unlawful cap on wages. Toledo native Nigel Hayes is among the plaintiffs, whereas the Big Ten is a defendant in the case along with the rest of the Power Five conferences, FOX, and ESPN.
“We have been involved in litigation over pay-for-play, name, image, and likeness for a decade,” Delany said at Big Ten media days this wek. “We’re, quite honestly, probably in the seventh inning of that.”
The case is scheduled for a bench trial in December, and Delany said he expects the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter which side prevails.
Player compensation is at the heart of the Jenkins case, like many that came before it, and the Olympic model could be a potential compromise for the future of the NCAA, which has come under fire for its amateur model as revenues in college athletics have exploded.
Olympic athletes can receive compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness — from appearances, commercials, and the like — but are allowed to maintain their amateur status.
Asked about the viability of allowing NCAA athletes to profit in the same way without being paid specifically by schools, Delany said bigger core decisions have to be made first.
“I think it’s premature until the fundamental issue of, can we make our rules, one, and, two, can we maintain intercollegiate athletics as we’ve known it over the last 100 years?” Delany said. “Despite its weaknesses, [our model] has plenty of strengths. … Until the Jenkins case is resolved through the courts, I think we’re better off just maintaining, holding our fodder on what might occur in the future in that area.”
While a clear deviation from the status quo, the Olympic model is far from perfect.
Joel Maxcy, a professor of sports management at Drexel University in Philadelphia, said he dislikes the Olympic model because it often bypasses the greater majority of athletes.
“Who it’s good for is your superstars, so it’s tremendous for Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky,” Maxcy said. “It’s not particularly good for rank-and-file athletes who don’t cash in on endorsements. I think that would be the same for NCAA athletes.”
Penn State quarterback Trace McSorley, right, wonders if college athletes have the time to take advantage of the Olympic model of playing athletes.
For the standout players in football and basketball, in particular, the opportunity to earn added compensation would be a significant difference from the current model, and in some cases a potential boon.
But it depends on the athlete.
“If you got enough time to shoot a commercial or run a camp, more power to you. Your demands as a student-athlete are high as it is,” Penn State quarterback Trace McSorley said. “If you feel like you take that on and the NCAA feels like that’s something that’s OK to do, I think it would be beneficial for guys to have those opportunities and still be able to maintain that amateur status.”
Name, image, and likeness litigation most notably impacted college football fans by marking the end for the ever-popular NCAA Footballvideo game series. Electronic Arts, which produced the game, originally was a defendant in Ed O’Bannon’s successful lawsuit against the NCAA, though EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Company settled for $40 million for their previous use of player likenesses in video games.
The football franchise released its last edition in 2013, which remains a sore subject for many college football players who wanted to play the game as themselves once they went to college.
Ohio State’s Parris Campbell, left, is among the players who mourn the loss to EA Sports college football game, which was a result of lawsuit from using players’ likenesses without paying them.
“When it ended, it was kind of crushing,” said Ohio State wide receiver Parris Campbell, who smiled and offered a concession for it to resume. “I say bring the game out now and just give every college football player a free copy. You don’t need to pay me, just give me a free copy of the game.”
The corruption scandal that overtook college basketball last fall made bare the black markets that already existed between corporations and college athletes, spurring the NCAA into immediate self-evaluation.
The Commission on College Basketball, led by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, concluded that athletes should be able to be to profit from their likeness as college athletes but recommended a “revitalization” of the college model and not a full overhaul.
“In the current legal setting, however, the Commission has decided to focus its recommendations on supporting the college model. It seeks to address the charge of player exploitation in other ways,” it stated.
The college model is hanging on for now.
No matter what the courts rule in the Jenkins case, however, it appears likely the NCAA will have to undertake long-term change.
“I do think we’re clearly on the way the relaxing NCAA restrictions on player compensation in a lot of ways, but I think that that’s taking a fair amount of time to play out,” Maxcy said. “I think we’re heading in that direction, but it will be slow.”