A U.S. appeals court has made a significant ruling that could potentially allow college athletes to be considered employees entitled to pay under federal wage-and-hour laws. The court's decision challenges the NCAA's traditional concept of amateurism in college sports and calls for a test to differentiate between students who play sports for fun and those whose efforts cross into the realm of work.
The ruling stems from a case involving Division I athletes seeking hourly wages similar to those earned in work-study programs. They argue that the time they dedicate to their sports, averaging 30 or more hours per week, warrants compensation. The plaintiffs' lawyer has suggested potential monthly and yearly earnings for athletes participating in NCAA sports.
The NCAA, which had hoped to have the case dismissed, will now have to undergo fact-finding as the case returns to the trial judge. The decision follows a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that prompted the NCAA to allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, leading to a revenue-sharing plan that could benefit athletes directly.
While the Supreme Court decision allowed for expanded benefits for college athletes, it did not address the issue of direct pay for athletes. The NCAA and member schools are defendants in the case, with arguments revolving around whether college athletes should be classified as employees.
The NCAA has compared college athletes to students involved in other campus activities, arguing that they should not be considered employees. However, the plaintiffs contend that the level of control coaches exert over athletes' time resembles an employment relationship.
The debate over whether college athletes should be paid directly continues to evolve, with various stakeholders expressing differing viewpoints on the matter. The case highlights the ongoing tension between the NCAA's amateurism model and the push for fair compensation for college athletes.
