This is the other side of the "amateurism" argument.
If the Kavanaugh perspective that college athletics must operate like any other industry is valid, should the Ivies be able to set "compensation" in the form of athletic scholarships at $0?
Is there a difference between the Ivies' defense and the NCAA's "amateurism" defense?
IVY LEAGUE MOVES TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING BAN ON ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS
On May 15, 2023, the Ivy League and its eight member universities moved to dismiss a putative class action contending that the schools’ athletic scholarship policies violate antitrust law. The lawsuit, filed by two student athletes from Brown University in March, challenges the Ivy League’s prohibition on providing athletic scholarships to students competing in their various Division I sports programs. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that the Ivy League’s ban constitutes a “price-fixing agreement” that “(1) fix[es] the price for athletic scholarships (at zero), and (2) fix[es] the compensation to Ivy League Athletes for provision of athletic services (also at zero),” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Further, the plaintiffs assert that the agreement is per se illegal and “has direct anticompetitive effects, raising the net price of education that Ivy League Athletes pay and suppressing compensation for the athletic services they provide to the University Defendants.”
In response, the Ivy League highlights its academic identity and cultural essence, explaining the eight member schools collectively “sought to foster campus cultures that do not prioritize athletics over other aspects of their educational mission and instead treat all exceptional students equally while still offering student-athletes the opportunity to play competitive Division I sports in an athletic conference with a relatively level playing field.” In the motion to dismiss, the defendants assert that the student-athletes are “misus[ing] the antitrust laws” as the plaintiffs alleged product markets are defined to only consist of the eight Ivy League schools – ignoring, Defendants assert, obvious and viable alternatives. Throughout the motion, the Ivy League defendants emphasize that their small conference and its unique policies contributes to the “expansion of consumer choice for student-athletes” to select a college based on the “balance of athletics and academics” each student prefers.
If the Kavanaugh perspective that college athletics must operate like any other industry is valid, should the Ivies be able to set "compensation" in the form of athletic scholarships at $0?
Is there a difference between the Ivies' defense and the NCAA's "amateurism" defense?
IVY LEAGUE MOVES TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING BAN ON ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS
On May 15, 2023, the Ivy League and its eight member universities moved to dismiss a putative class action contending that the schools’ athletic scholarship policies violate antitrust law. The lawsuit, filed by two student athletes from Brown University in March, challenges the Ivy League’s prohibition on providing athletic scholarships to students competing in their various Division I sports programs. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that the Ivy League’s ban constitutes a “price-fixing agreement” that “(1) fix[es] the price for athletic scholarships (at zero), and (2) fix[es] the compensation to Ivy League Athletes for provision of athletic services (also at zero),” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Further, the plaintiffs assert that the agreement is per se illegal and “has direct anticompetitive effects, raising the net price of education that Ivy League Athletes pay and suppressing compensation for the athletic services they provide to the University Defendants.”
In response, the Ivy League highlights its academic identity and cultural essence, explaining the eight member schools collectively “sought to foster campus cultures that do not prioritize athletics over other aspects of their educational mission and instead treat all exceptional students equally while still offering student-athletes the opportunity to play competitive Division I sports in an athletic conference with a relatively level playing field.” In the motion to dismiss, the defendants assert that the student-athletes are “misus[ing] the antitrust laws” as the plaintiffs alleged product markets are defined to only consist of the eight Ivy League schools – ignoring, Defendants assert, obvious and viable alternatives. Throughout the motion, the Ivy League defendants emphasize that their small conference and its unique policies contributes to the “expansion of consumer choice for student-athletes” to select a college based on the “balance of athletics and academics” each student prefers.
