This post from about a year ago addressed the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s longstanding and dubious regulation of intercollegiate athletics, and now a class action antitrust lawsuit is asserting a pretty hefty damage claim against the NCAA that directly challenges the organization’s regulatory system.
This ESPN.com article reports on the antitrust suit that was filed last week in Los Angeles on the theory that the NCAA has illegally conspired to prohibit member institutions from offering athletic scholarships that cover the ìfull costî of attending a college. The NCAA dictates a standard scholarship package in the form of a ìgrant-in-aid,î which covers tuition, room and board, books and a few other related expenses. However, it does not cover expenses such as phone bills and travel expenses, which many student-athletes from families with low incomes have a difficult time financing. As the ESPN.com article notes:

[A]thletes are the only students subject to aid restrictions imposed by an agreement among universities. Talented students in music, chemistry or any other area can be bid upon by individual colleges, without limits on the total value of their scholarship packages.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of student-athletes in the graduating classes from 2002-2010 and requests damages covering the difference in scholarship costs and full costs for approximately 20,000 student-athletes. Incidentals such as phone bills and travel expenses may not seem like much, but the article estimates that the potential class damages would be approximately $120 million, which — under antitrust damage rules — would be trebled to $360 million. Anti-trust lawsuits are certainly nothing new for the NCAA, but $350 million in potential damages has a way of getting the attention of even university presidents who prefer to avoid addressing the messy hyprocrisy that major intercollegiate athletics has become.
The NCAA will likely defend the case on the grounds that the fixed scholarship rule is necessary to maintain ìcompetitive balanceî and promote amateurism. However, my sense is that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will be able to draw on a growing body of academic research that will challenge those rationalizations for an obsolescent system that holds down the compensation for developing athletes while perpetuating lucrative public relations/athletic departments at a relatively few NCAA member institutions. This will definitely be an interesting lawsuit to follow, so stay tuned.
Update: Mike McCann has further analysis and helpful links in this Sports Law Blog post.
2.24.06 Update: Josh Center provides compelling thoughts of a true student-athlete in regard to the lawsuit and the NCAA’s dubious promotion of minor league professional sports.