Taylor O’Toole
ABSTRACT
The NCAA’s longstanding tradition of amateurism is a pillar of the NCAA that has been regularly challenged by student-athletes and the public. The NCAA has set forth numerous guidelines to safeguard this tradition, including the Self-Employment Guidelines, which provide that a student-athlete may not use his or her name, image, likeness, or reputation as an NCAA athlete in the promotion of his or her business. The Self-Employment Guidelines have become particularly relevant and controversial recently, as the NCAA has found student-athletes to be ineligible based on these Guidelines, and has warned future student-athletes against these practices in order to remain in compliance. In August 2017, Donald De La Haye, the kicker for the University of Central Florida, was deemed ineligible for a violation of the Self-Employment Guidelines after receiving advertising revenues on his YouTube channel. Additionally, the NCAA has expressed concern over highly anticipated sixteen-year-old basketball star LaMelo Ball’s participation in his family’s business, Big Baller Brand.
Antitrust claims are a common vehicle for student-athletes to challenge NCAA regulations. Thus, this Comment will engage in a rule of reason analysis of the NCAA’s Self-Employment Guidelines to determine if the maintenance of the tradition of amateurism, along with the desire for parity amongst universities and amongst student-athletes, sufficiently justifies any anticompetitive effects that the student-athletes might feel from the Self-Employment Guidelines. Ultimately, this Comment will conclude that the procompetitive justifications outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the Guidelines.