Not Quite Filling The Gap: Why the Miscellaneous Expense Allowance Leaves the NCAA Vulnerable to Antitrust Litigation

Abstract

Throughout its history, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been repeatedly accused of violating antitrust law in a range of different ways—restricting television broadcasts, limiting coaches’ salaries, and capping the amount of athletic scholarships. Most recently, in the case of White v. NCAA, a class of plaintiffs argued that the NCAA’s artificial limitation on student-athlete compensation violated antitrust law. Although this case settled before trial, it represented a major victory for student-athletes. The NCAA is now considering a proposal— the Miscellaneous Expense Allowance (“MEA”)—that would raise the NCAA’s artificial cap on athletics-related financial aid by $2000. This legislation is partially aimed at protecting the NCAA from further antitrust liability, but it does not quite fill the gap. After providing a brief history of college athletics and student-athlete compensation, this Note then examines the mechanics of antitrust law and how courts have applied antitrust law in the context of the NCAA. This Note then argues that a hypothetical class of student-athletes could still bring a viable antitrust claim against the NCAA, even if the MEA is passed. Subsequently, this Note analyzes the arguments on both sides that would arise in such a hypothetical lawsuit.