Abstract

        The introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights has changed college athletics a lot and brought more attention to legal debates about the status of student-athletes. This article looks at whether college athletes should be considered employees under United States law by analyzing key antitrust cases, basic labor law ideas, and recent developments from the National Labor Relations Board. By looking closely at cases like NCAA v. Alston and O'Bannon v. NCAA, this article argues that the traditional idea of amateurism doesn’t really fit with how college sports work today. It also explores what could happen if student-athletes were considered employees, including possible legal protections and changes to how college sports are structured.

​

Introduction

        In recent years, college athletics has gone through a dramatic transformation due to the emergence of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, which allow student athletes to profit from endorsements, sponsorships, and social media presence. While these changes have created new financial opportunities for athletes, they have also raised deeper legal questions about the structure of college sports. Specifically, there is increasing debate over whether college athletes should be considered employees of their universities rather than people participating in extracurricular activities.

        For decades, the NCAA has argued that student athletes are not employees but students first, and that their participation in sports is primarily educational. However, this idea has become harder to defend as college athletics has evolved into a multibillion-dollar industry. Universities, media companies, and athletic departments generate huge amounts of revenue, while athletes are still limited in how they can be compensated. 

        This issue becomes even more important when looking at federal laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prevents unfair restrictions on competition, and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects workers’ rights to organize. There are also questions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets minimum wage and labor standards, and whether college athletes should be included under those protections.

​

Background: Amateurism and the Structure of College Athletics

        The NCAA’s concept of amateurism has served as the foundation for its rules restricting athlete compensation. Under this model, student athletes are considered participants in an educational experience rather than workers providing labor. This distinction has justified limiting direct payments to athletes while allowing them to receive scholarships and certain benefits.

        Even though it’s described this way, college athletics actually looks more like a business than just an educational activity. Major college sports programs make billions of dollars annually through television contracts, sponsorship deals, and ticket sales. Universities invest heavily in athletic facilities, coaching staff, and recruitment, treating sports as a central component of their branding and revenue generation. At the same time, athletes are required to follow strict schedules, adhere to team rules, and dedicate significant time to training, travel, and competition.

        This creates a contradiction. Athletes are labeled as amateurs, but their labor drives a profitable industry. For example, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, courts have questioned whether NCAA restrictions on compensation unlawfully limit competition. In NCAA v. Alston (2021), the Supreme Court held that certain NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated antitrust law, signaling that the NCAA is not exempt from standard market competition rules [1]. Earlier, in O'Bannon v. NCAA (2015), the court ruled that NCAA restrictions on athletes’ use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) also had anticompetitive effects, laying the groundwork for later NIL reforms [2].

        More recently, policy changes around NIL rights, prompted in part by state legislation like California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, have further weakened the traditional amateurism model [3]. These laws allow athletes to profit from endorsements, directly challenging the NCAA’s historical restrictions.

        Taken together, these legal developments suggest that the NCAA’s amateurism framework is increasingly difficult to justify. As courts apply antitrust principles and lawmakers expand athlete rights, the distinction between “student” and “employee” continues to blur, raising serious questions about whether the current system can persist without significant reform.

​

[1] NCAA v. Alston (2021).

[2] O’Bannon v. NCAA (9th Cir. 2015).

[3] California Fair Pay to Play Act (2019).

​

Legal Developments and the Erosion of Amateurism

        One of the most significant challenges to the NCAA’s authority came in NCAA v. Alston. In this case, the United States Supreme Court said that the NCAA violated Sherman Antitrust Act by restricting education related benefits that schools could provide to student athletes. Even though the ruling only applied to certain types of compensation, it still had a big impact overall. The Court rejected the NCAA’s argument that such restrictions were necessary to preserve amateurism, signaling a shift in how the judiciary views the organization’s role in regulating college sports [4].

        The concurring opinion by Brett Kavanaugh was notable because it directly questioned the legality of the NCAA’s entire compensation model. Kavanaugh argued that the NCAA’s practices would likely be considered illegal in any other industry, emphasizing that the organization’s justification for limiting athlete pay is inconsistent with basic principles of antitrust law. This reasoning suggests that future legal cases might go beyond just education-related benefits and start challenging other limits on how athletes can be paid.

        An earlier case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, also played a critical role in weakening the NCAA’s amateurism framework. The case came up when former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon challenged the NCAA’s use of his likeness in video games without compensation. The court ruled that the NCAA’s restrictions violated antitrust law and allowed for limited forms of compensation tied to an athlete’s name, image, and likeness. This decision marked a turning point by recognizing that student athletes have economic rights that cannot be entirely restricted by the NCAA.

        Together, these cases show a bigger trend in the law. Courts are starting to question the NCAA’s argument that amateurism is a good reason to limit how athletes get paid, especially when those limits seem to restrict fair competition. Because of this, the legal support for the NCAA’s system is getting weaker [5].

​

[4] NCAA v. Alston (2021).

[5] O’Bannon v. NCAA (9th Cir. 2015).

​

The Case for Employee Classification

        The argument that college athletes should be classified as employees is grounded in both economic reality and established legal principles. Under common law tests for employment, courts look at factors such as the level of control, the nature of the work, and whether the individual is compensated. When applied to college athletics, these factors make the relationship between athletes and universities look more like employment than education.

        College athletes provide valuable services by competing in games, generating revenue, and contributing to their school’s success. In return, they receive compensation through scholarships, stipends, and other benefits. Universities also exercise significant control over athletes’ schedules, behavior, and performance, requiring them to attend practices, follow training programs, and comply with strict team rules.

        The time commitment further supports this view. Many athletes spend dozens of hours each week on their sport, which closely resembles a full-time job. This connects to key labor laws. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets standards for wages and working conditions, meaning athletes could qualify for minimum wage if classified as employees [6]. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) would also give them the right to unionize and bargain collectively [7].

        Antitrust law reinforces this argument. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, limits on athlete compensation may be viewed as unlawful restraints on trade [8]. In NCAA v. Alston (2021), the Supreme Court confirmed that the NCAA is subject to antitrust scrutiny, weakening the traditional justification of amateurism.

Together, these laws suggest that if college athletes meet the same criteria as workers in other industries, they could reasonably be classified as employees and entitled to similar legal protections.

​

[6] Fair Labor Standards Act (1938).

[7] National Labor Relations Act (1935).

[8] Sherman Antitrust Act (1890).

​

Labor Law and the Role of the NLRB

        Labor law plays a big role in this debate. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees have the right to unionize and negotiate working conditions. In a 2015 case involving Northwestern University football players, the NLRB considered whether scholarship athletes could form a union under federal labor law. Although the Board declined to issue a definitive ruling, it acknowledged that the issue raised serious questions about the classification of student athletes [9].

        More recently, the NLRB’s general counsel has said that certain college athletes should be recognized as employees. This is based on the idea that athletes are basically providing a service to their universities and getting compensation in return, while also being under the school’s control, which fits how we usually define employment. Even though there hasn’t been a final ruling yet, this shows that labor law could start being applied differently to college sports in the future.

​

[9] Northwestern University (2015).

​

Implications of Recognizing Athletes as Employees

        If college athletes were legally classified as employees, the consequences would be significant for both athletes and universities. Athletes could gain access to important labor protections, including minimum wage laws and workers’ compensation for injuries sustained during competition. This is particularly relevant given the physical risks associated with many college sports, where injuries can have long term health consequences.

        Employee status could also let athletes engage in collective bargaining, giving them a voice in negotiating, working conditions, and benefits. This would represent a major shift in the power dynamics of college athletics, potentially leading to more equitable treatment of athletes. At the same time, recognizing athletes as employees could create challenges for universities and the NCAA. Institutions may face increased financial obligations, and the distinction between college and professional sports could become less clear. 

 

Counterarguments and NCAA Justifications

        The NCAA continues to argue that classifying athletes as employees would undermine the educational purpose of college sports. It claims that amateurism helps preserve competitive balance and distinguishes college athletics from professional leagues. Additionally, universities argue that paying athletes as employees could lead to increased costs, potentially forcing smaller programs to cut sports or reduce opportunities for non-revenue athletes.

        However, courts have increasingly questioned these justifications. In NCAA v. Alston (2021), the Supreme Court rejected the idea that preserving amateurism automatically justifies restrictions on compensation [10]. This suggests that the NCAA’s traditional defenses may not be strong enough to withstand continued legal scrutiny.

​

[10] NCAA v. Alston (2021).

​

The Future of College Athlete Rights

        Looking ahead, the legal status of college athletes will likely continue to evolve. With the expansion of NIL rights and increasing pressure from both courts and lawmakers, more changes to the system seem inevitable. Federal laws like the National Labor Relations Act could play a larger role if athletes are formally recognized as employees, especially in areas like unionization and collective bargaining.

        At the same time, there is growing discussion about creating a new legal framework specifically for college athletes, one that balances education, compensation, and labor rights. As debates continue, it is clear that the traditional model of amateurism is no longer stable and will likely be replaced by a more modern system.

 

Conclusion and Future Outlook

        The NIL era has totally reshaped college athletics, exposing tensions that have existed for decades. While student athletes are now able to profit from their personal brands, their classification as amateurs remains unchanged, creating an ongoing legal and ethical conflict.

        Cases such as NCAA v. Alston and O’Bannon v. NCAA demonstrates that courts are willing to challenge the NCAA’s authority and reconsider the assumptions underlying amateurism. At the same time, the NLRB suggests that labor law may play an increasingly important role in determining the future of athlete rights.

        In the end, the question of whether college athletes are employees still hasn’t been fully answered, but recent legal changes suggest that something will probably change soon. As college sports keep making more money and evolving, the law will have to decide if the current system still makes sense or if a new one is needed. Whatever happens will have a big impact not just on athletes and universities, but on the future of sports in the United States overall.