House v. NCAA is not merely an antitrust case. It is a reckoning.

---

The House v. NCAA matter invites the Court to decide not merely a question of antitrust and fair compensation but fundamental justice. Building on the precedent set in NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021), this case allows establishing long-overdue safeguards for student-athletes in a rapidly shifting collegiate sports landscape. This memorandum makes five core arguments:

–Alston opened the door to viewing student-athletes as employees entitled to compensation for long-term injuries.
–Student-athletes cannot be “damaged” by enrollment/roster limitations if they can compete at similar institutions.
–Entrenched bias and discrimination against academic student-athletes must be addressed and remedied.
–The NCAA’s mythology of grit and sacrifice is unfounded, unscientific, and economically exploitative.
–Judicial intervention is necessary due to the administrative failure of NCAA governance.

Alston Recognized a Free Market for Athlete Services and Confirmed the Employee-Employer Relationship: In NCAA v. Alston, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the NCAA is not immune from antitrust scrutiny. More significantly, Alston recognized that economic realities—not formalistic labels—determine the nature of the relationship between athletes and institutions. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion noted that “[n]owhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate… the NCAA is not above the law” 141 S. Ct. at 2168 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). This language affirms the status of athletes as *de facto* employees, an idea reinforced by labor law scholars and now being tested in Johnson v. NCAA, No. 22-3460 (3d Cir. 2023), and Dawson v. NCAA, 932 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2019).

In a Free Market, Roster Allocation Is Not Harmful—It Is Economically Efficient. Some have argued that reducing roster spots or scholarship availability causes compensable harm. This misunderstands how competitive labor markets operate. Under standard microeconomic theory, a well-functioning market will naturally equilibrate where willingness to accept (WTA) equals willingness to pay (WTP). In other words, if an athlete has market value, they will find a place to play. If not, that outcome is neither anomalous nor unlawful—it is the definition of a rational market outcome. Ehrenberg and Smith (2020) explain in Modern Labor Economics that any healthy market has some degree of unemployment or unplaced labor as a buffer against churn, turnover, and inefficiency. Labor mobility, especially in athletics, is a sign of economic functionality—not dysfunction. Not every musician gets a seat in the orchestra, not every actor gets cast, and not every athlete makes a Division I roster. The key is opportunity, not guarantee. Moreover, Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) affirmed that no constitutional right exists to attend or compete at a specific institution. What matters is that similarly situated opportunities exist.

Discrimination Against Student-Athletes Is Systemic and Unaddressed: Universities have long insisted that athletes are “students first.”

In practice, athletes in revenue-generating sports—especially football and basketball—are often herded into low-rigor majors and denied access to meaningful academic exploration. They are given just enough resources to remain eligible but not enough to flourish (Fountain & Finley, 2009). Faculty biases reinforce these structural barriers. Numerous studies have shown that student-athletes are viewed by faculty as less intelligent, less prepared, and more likely to cheat (Comeaux, 2010; Simons et al., 2007; Engstrom et al., 1995). These assumptions are particularly harmful to Black male athletes, who face a dual burden of racial and athletic stereotyping (Kuhn, 2017; Harper, 2018). This is not just unfair—it is a civil rights issue. No federal statute explicitly protects athletes from academic discrimination. Title IX and Title VI have been interpreted narrowly. Meanwhile, administrators often capture internal university grievance systems whose incentives depend on winning seasons and donor satisfaction. There is no meaningful accountability and, thus, no meaningful protection for student-athletes in their pursuit of education. As such, compensation is critical as a tool to empower student-athletes in a system that is rigged against them.

The Myth of Grit and Development Is a Dangerous Fiction Marketed by Media Fanboys: Public understanding of the athletic experience has been shaped not by scholars or coaches but by a new breed of commentator: the fanboy.

Fanboys glorify practice and hardship under the myth of “grit”—a term popularized by Angela Duckworth and Malcolm Gladwell. However, scientific reviews have shown that grit is a poor predictor of success when separated from socioeconomic status and institutional support (Credé et al., 2017). Likewise, Hambrick et al. (2020) demonstrated that Ericsson’s theory of deliberate practice—often cited as the science behind the “10,000-hour rule”—is unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific. Worse still, the NCAA’s athlete development model ignores key motor learning and cognitive science findings. The Challenge Point Framework (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004) emphasizes that learning requires variability, rest, and autonomy. Robert Bjerknes (2022) demonstrated that percolation theory and distributed practice are more effective for long-term retention than repetitive drills. Yet athletes are subjected to 20-hour weeks of regimented monotony dictated by coaches with little regard for learning science or injury prevention. This structure is not just inefficient—it’s dehumanizing. It prepares athletes for nothing but sport; they are left unprepared for adulthood when that sport ends. Burned out and underskilled, many face what researchers have called “identity foreclosure” (Brewer et al., 1993)—the psychological trap of having no identity beyond their athletic role. The broader media fails to convey this. Instead, it lionizes the struggle and ignores the fallout. Sensationalism replaces scholarship, commentary replaces reporting, and athletes are left voiceless in conversations about their lives.

Judicial Oversight Is Necessary Due to Administrative Failure: The NCAA has no interest in reforming its exploitative structure. Schools prioritize broadcast contracts and donor satisfaction over student welfare. Athletes injured in service of the university are discarded once their eligibility expires. Unlike other civil rights matters—such as the Department of Education’s recent $400 million Title VI investigation into antisemitism—bias against athletes receives no federal scrutiny, no Department of Labor investigation, no Department of Education inquiry, and no oversight. As the Supreme Court held in Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), courts may intervene under antitrust law when a dominant market actor uses its control to distort competition. That moment is now.

House v. NCAA is not merely an antitrust case but a reckoning. The Court must decide whether athletes are human beings with labor rights and educational dignity or mere instruments of institutional profit. The evidence, the precedent, and the science converge on one conclusion: athletes must be compensated fairly, educated seriously, and protected meaningfully.

Cover graphic courtesy On3.com

______________