Floyd v. NCAA and Division I Conferences: Antitrust Lawsuit Filed in Minnesota

Sharrif Floyd and six other student-athletes have filed a class action suit against the NCAA, Big 10, Pac-12, Big 12, SEC, ACC, AAC, Atlantic Sun, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, and Sun Belt. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have “jointly agreed and conspired with their member institutions…to deny these athletes compensation they would otherwise receive for their services in a competitive market.” There are a number of lawsuits currently pending relating to compensation for student-athletes, financial aid packages, and the cost of attendance. This lawsuit adds two wrinkles that have not been previously addressed: 1) the Plaintiffs sued the NCAA and conferences (other lawsuits have included only the major five conferences); and 2) the class has a female representative and, thus, the Plaintiffs are seeking additional “compensation” for female student-athletes.

The Plaintiffs have set forth the following proposed class and subclasses:

Class: All persons who received or will receive full athletic grant-in-aids (“GIAs”) for participation in college football at a FBS school, men’s basketball at a NCAA D-1A school, or women’s basketball at a NCAA D-1A school at any time between four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter, or the date of any resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later.

Football Subclass: All persons who received or will receive full athletic grant-in-aids (“GIAs”) for participation in college football at a FBS school, at any time between four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter, or the date of any resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later.

Men’s Basketball Subclass: All persons who received or will receive full athletic grant-in-aids (“GIAs”) for participation in NCAA D-IA men’s basketball, at any time between four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter, or the date of any resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later.

Women’s Basketball Subclass: All persons who received or will receive full athletic grant-in-aids (“GIAs”) for participation in NCAA D-IA women’s basketball, at any time between four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter, or the date of any resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later.

The Plaintiffs argue that there are three distinct relevant markets to support their antitrust claims: (1) the market for NCAA D-IA Football Bowl Subdivision (“FBS”) football player services (the “FBS Football Players Market”); (2) the market for D-IA men’s basketball player services (the “D-IA Men’s Basketball Players Market”); and (3) the market for D-IA women’s basketball player services (the “D-IA Women’s Basketball Players Market”).

The Plaintiffs state in their Complaint that the “NCAA Constitution and Bylaws constitute express, horizontal agreements amount the NCAA, its conferences, and its members.” Further, the Plaintiffs argue NCAA bylaws “prohibit, cap, or otherwise limit the remuneration that players in each of these markets may receive for their athletic services” and, specifically, the Plaintiffs reference, among others, NCAA bylaws 15.01.2, 15.02.5, 15.1, 12.01.1, 12.01.4, 12.02.7, 12.1.2, 12,1,2,1, and 16.11.2 as having an anticompetitive effect. According to the Plaintiffs, but for Defendants’ “unlawfully restrictive rules”, members of the class “would be able to seek and would receive remuneration for their athletic services above Defendants’ GIA cap.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs indicate that Defendants have unlawfully combined and conspired by (a) agreeing to artificially fix, depress, maintain, and/or stabilize prices paid to Plaintiffs and members of the Class for their collegiate football and basketball athletic services; (b) agreeing to boycott any institutions or players who refuse to comply with Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ price-fixing agreement; and (c) implementing, monitoring and enforcing the conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators. Plaintiffs seek recovery in accordance with Section 1 of the Sherman Act and injunctive relief.