NCAA faces lawsuit for capping athletic scholarships
The NCAA is up against yet another lawsuit, this time involving placing a cap on the value of athletic scholarships, which allegedly violates antitrust laws.
March 11, 2014 at 05:48 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The NCAA is up against yet another lawsuit, this time involving placing a cap on the value of athletic scholarships, which allegedly violates antitrust laws.
A former West Virginia running back is filing a lawsuit against the NCAA and the five power conferences. The lawsuit claims that the NCAA has placed a cap on athletic scholarships that are actually below the cost of the schools in questions.
According to a report on CBS Sports, a 2012 study on Al.com found that out-of-pocket expenses for a full scholarship FBS athlete in 2011-12 ranged from $1,000 a year to $6,904 a year, depending on the school, which accounts for out-of-pocket expenses that aren't covered by a full scholarship.
Former Mountaineer RB Shawne Alston filed the lawsuit against the NCAA and plans to represent other former FBS scholarship football players who also played at the five conferences. According to the report, the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 were all cited as defendants, along with the NCAA. The suit claims that Alston had to take out a $5,500 loan to cover the difference while he was at West Virginia.
While the NCAA hasn't agreed to allow schools to provide an extra stipend to help cover additional expenses for student athletes, there have been discussions of providing extra benefits for athletes from power conferences. Naturally this creates the potential for recruiting boosts for schools involved in the power conferences.
“Under antitrust laws, a defendant's desire to save costs – and thereby increase profits at the expense of other participants in the market – is not a legitimate justification for the grant-in-aid cap or any other horizontal agreement to restrict price or output,” the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuits intention is to reverse NCAA rules that prohibit an extra stipend for athletes while also recovering damages for the expenses athletes were forced to pay when their scholarships didn't cover everything under the cost of living.
Related news:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Class Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
- 2Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With 17-Lawyer Team From Locke Lord
- 3$2M Settlement for Woman Struck by New Jersey Transit Bus
- 4BREAKING: Donald Trump to Face Sentencing on January 10, Judge Rules
- 5Samuel M. Lehrer, Retired Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge, Dies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250