Federal Appeals Court Rules Some College Athletes May Qualify as Employees

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that college athletes in Division I revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball may qualify as employees, potentially entitling them to labor protections.

The ruling, which could significantly alter the landscape of college sports, rejects the NCAA’s long-standing argument that college players are amateur “student-athletes” and therefore not covered by worker protections.

The decision stems from a lawsuit initiated by Ralph “Trey” Johnson, a former Villanova football player, and a dozen other college athletes. They argued that their rigorous training and competition schedules, often exceeding 20 hours per week, constitute work deserving of compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This 1938 law guarantees minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor protections.

The three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based appeals court expressed support for the athletes’ claims, dismissing the NCAA’s stance that college athletes’ roles are purely amateur. The panel criticized the term “student-athlete” as a marketing tool rather than a reflection of the players’ true relationship with their schools. “Like ‘band-aid’ or ‘laundromat,’ ‘student-athlete’ is essentially a brand name that has become synonymous with its product. As scholars have noted, the term is an NCAA marketing invention,” the panel remarked, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The court emphasized that a historical notion of amateurism should not determine the economic reality of the athletes’ relationship with their institutions. Consequently, the ruling declares that college athletes cannot be barred from asserting FLSA claims solely based on the tradition of amateurism in Division I athletics.

The appeals court acknowledged that not all college athletes might meet the criteria to be considered employees. The determining factor is whether the athlete is providing services that benefit the school in exchange for compensation. This means that athletes in high-profile sports at wealthier institutions might be eligible for labor protections, while those at smaller schools or in non-revenue-generating sports might not.

“Merely playing sports, even at the college level, cannot always be considered commercial work integral to the employer’s business,” the court noted. “But just as intuitively, with professional athletes as the clearest indicators, playing sports can certainly constitute compensable work.”

The ruling sends the case back to a trial court for further proceedings, potentially paving the way for college athletes to seek minimum wages and other benefits.

Source: The Wall Street Journal