In Rock v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a class of former college athletes filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana arguing that they have corrected the defects in a prior case and alleged facts sufficient to establish a relevant antitrust market in student athlete labor. The complaint alleges that the NCAA restrained competition in this market by reducing scholarship awards to student athletes. In particular, the former student athletes challenge a former ban on multiyear scholarships and a cap on the number of scholarships that a school may award.
The plaintiffs describe the market as “a ‘nationwide market for the labor of student athletes.’” Although the Seventh Circuit recently dismissed a similar case, the players contend that the court signaled that such a market allegation would support a case against the NCAA.
The NCAA has argued that the alleged market is “simultaneously too broad and too narrow.” Opportunities to play sports at one college are not necessarily a substitute for playing elsewhere, the NCAA contends, thus making the allegation too broad. Yet, the alleged market is also too narrow because non-NCAA colleges and professional leagues are substitutes for NCAA sport opportunities.
The case is currently pending.