A new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — which rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the NCAA — may have a significant impact on the employment status of student athletes and even wider implications on college sports in the U.S.
This case, Jonson v. NCAA, brought by a group of student athletes, argues that they should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state laws. U.S. District Judge John Padova’s ruling challenges the NCAA’s long-held stance that college athletes cannot simultaneously be students and employees.
Padova directed the lower court to assess whether athletes perform services primarily benefiting the college under the college’s control in exchange for compensation. Given his earlier rulings against the NCAA’s practices, it seems likely that the district court may conclude that athletes are employees.
“Today’s decision affirmed the core tenet of the lower court’s determination; namely, that the NCAA is not above the law and student athletes may be employees entitled to the protections of the FLSA,” Michael Willemin, a Wigdor LLP partner and attorney representing the players, said in a statement following the ruling.
Led by former Villanova football player Ralph “Trey” Johnson, the plaintiffs include athletes from over a dozen Division I schools. They argue that their athletic duties, which are separate from their academic responsibilities and heavily controlled by their schools, meet the legal criteria for employment. The NCAA’s role as a joint employer is central to the case, based on its enforcement of workplace rules that colleges must follow. Athletes seek compensation similar to work-study students who perform tasks like working at concession stands during games where athletes are not paid.
The Third Circuit’s ruling, however, did not grant the athletes employee status but instructed the district court to apply a different legal test to determine their employment status. If deemed employees under the FLSA, athletes would be entitled to at least minimum wage and overtime pay, potentially leading to substantial financial obligations for the NCAA and colleges. This case could also necessitate changes in the NCAA’s amateurism rules to acknowledge an employer-employee relationship.
The appellate court’s decision contrasts with rulings from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which rejected similar claims. This split could prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to address the issue, affecting the status of hundreds of thousands of current and former college athletes.
The Third Circuit acknowledged changing legal precedents and societal views, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston and the National Labor Relations Board’s position that college athletes can be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act. The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, potentially setting a precedent for the future of college athletics.
