THE BLIND SIDE OF COLLEGE SPORTS: Struggles Of Student Athletes Under The NCAA Era And Its Comparison To an Indian Sports Governing Body

Written by Tulika Gupta

A. Introduction

Sports law, a multifaceted legal domain, intersects various disciplines including contract law, labour law, antitrust law, and intellectual property rights. This legal landscape governs the complex relationships between athletes, teams, leagues, and governing bodies, shaping the very core of organized sports.[1] Within this broad spectrum, college sports represent a particularly tricky arena, where the ideals of amateurism clash with the realities of a multi-billion dollar industry of college sports.

In the United States, college sports have grown into a cultural phenomenon that goes beyond the boundaries of academic institutions under the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Legal precedents have played a big impact in shaping the landscape of college sports. The landmark case of O'Bannon v. NCAA(2014)[2] fundamentally challenged the core of the NCAA's rules which is amateurism. This decision paved the way for significant changes, including the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) laws, which allow student-athletes to profit from their brand. 

While these legal battles unfold in the United States, other countries are developing their approaches to balancing athlete development with education. In India, the Khelo India initiative, launched in 2018, aims to revitalize the sports ecosystem by building a strong framework for all sports played in the country.[3] Unlike the NCAA's commercially driven structure, Khelo India focuses on both athletic and academic growth, providing comprehensive support for young athletes.

This article aims to examine the legal and ethical challenges faced by college athletes through the lens of these evolving legal precedents and contrasting governance models. By analysing recent developments in the United States and comparing them with initiatives like Khelo India, we seek to illuminate the changing landscape of student-athlete rights.

B. Case Study

B.1. Former NFL Player - Michael Oher

The story of Michael Oher's life from foster care to the NFL sheds light on deep issues with college athletics. Born in Memphis in 1986, Oher experienced homelessness and instability before being taken in by Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, whose story became the basis for "The Blind Side".[4] Despite achieving success through a scholarship at the University of Mississippi and later in the NFL, his case shows the tricky world of exploitation in college sports.

In 2023, Oher filed a lawsuit against the Tuohy family, revealing that they had placed him under conservatorship rather than legally adopting him as he had believed. The lawsuit claimed that while he received no compensation for the film's success, the Tuohys profited significantly from his life story.[5] This legal action has sparked renewed debate about the treatment of student-athletes, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The case epitomizes broader issues within college athletics, including questions about athlete compensation, exploitation, and what moral duties people have when they profit from athletes' success.[6] It serves as a crucial example of why we need to change how college sports governance is necessary.

B.2. Landmark case of O'Bannon v. NCAA

O'Bannon v. NCAA (2014)[7] marked a turning point in antitrust class action lawsuits. This case challenged the NCAA's long-held practice of not paying student-athletes for using their names, images, and likenesses (NILs). The case was initiated by Ed O'Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, who noticed his likeness being used in a video game without his permission or compensation.

The plaintiffs argued that the NCAA's rules preventing student-athletes from being paid for the use of their NILs violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[8] They contended that these rules constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade, effectively allowing the NCAA and its member institutions to profit from athletes' NILs while denying the athletes themselves any share of the revenue.[9]

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that the NCAA's rules violated antitrust laws. The court ordered that schools be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships and up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation.

B.2.1. Implications for Student-Athlete Rights

The O'Bannon case has had a major effect on the rights of the student-athletes and has significantly influenced the discussions on athlete compensation:

1. Challenging Amateurism:

   
   

   The case contested against the very idea of amateurism in the NCAA, leading to more lawsuits and public criticism of the NCAA's rules.

   
   

2. NIL Rights:

   
   

   While the initial ruling was later modified on appeal, the case laid the groundwork for the current NIL landscape. This controversy led to a national debate over whether or not student-athletes should be allowed to capitalize off of their names, images, and likenesses.[10]

   
   

3. Legislative Changes:

   
   

   That case put pressure on state legislatures and the NCAA to adopt NIL laws. By 2021, many states had passed laws allowing college athletes to profit from their NILs, effectively forcing the NCAA to change its longstanding rules.[11]

   
   

4. Expanded Benefits:

   
   

   This case caused an extension of allowable rewards to student-athletes, such as the full cost of attending scholarships, which include everything from tuition, room, and board.[12]

B.3. The NCAA v. Alston Decision: Further Erosion of NCAA Authority

The momentum from O'Bannon led to another big legal loss for the NCAA in NCAA v. Alston (2021).[13] The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the NCAA cannot restrict the college's education-related benefits they offered to student-athletes. This landmark ruling allowed institutions to provide athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is connected to their education, including perks such as computers, study-abroad programs, and graduate school scholarships.[14] Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion caught people's attention, which intimated that the NCAA's remaining compensation rules might also break antitrust laws, possibly paving the way for future challenges to the NCAA's power. [15]

C. NCAA: Regulations And Student-Athlete Rights

The NCAA has long been the governing body for college sports in the United States, impacting its significant influence over the lives and careers of student-athletes.

Its traditional regulatory structure has been centred on maintaining amateurism while also controlling collegiate sports. Key regulations include eligibility requirements, scholarship limitations, and time commitment restrictions. However, recent developments, particularly regarding Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, have fundamentally changed this landscape.

The implementation of NIL legislation in 2021 marked a pivotal shift, allowing student-athletes to monetize their brands while staying eligible to play.[16] This shift has created varying impacts across different sports and institutions, with early evidence suggesting that while high-profile athletes in revenue-generating sports have benefited significantly, athletes in Olympic sports and smaller programs face challenges in accessing similar opportunities.[17]

Several critical factors shape the current state of collegiate athletics:

1. Social Justice and Equity:

   
   

   Research shows disparate impacts of NCAA policies across demographic groups, with minority and economically disadvantaged student-athletes facing unique challenges.[18] This intersectionality of race, gender, and socioeconomic background significantly influences athlete experiences and opportunities.

   
   

2. Health and Safety Concerns:

   
   

   The long-term health implications of collegiate athletics, especially in contact sports, remain a concern. While the NCAA has implemented stricter safety protocols, questions persist if the adequacy of current health protection measures and rules do enough to protect the athletes.[19]

   
   

3. Institutional Dynamics:

   
   

   The link between athletic and academic departments often creates complex power dynamics in programs generating substantial revenue. This can lead to potential conflicts between athletic success and academic integrity.[20]

D. Khelo India Initiative: Overview And Goals

Khelo India, which translates to "Play India," is a national program launched by the Indian government in 2018. Its primary objective is to breathe new life into sports culture at the grassroots level.[21] 

The initiative aims to:

1. To identify and develop young talent from across the country.

   
   

2. To promote and get mass participation in sports.

   
   

3. Developing a strong sporting infrastructure at both school and university levels.

   
   

4. Fostering a culture where sports and fitness are important in India.

Unlike the NCAA, which primarily focuses on collegiate sports, Khelo India takes a wider approach by targeting athletes from school through university.[22] The program offers scholarships, training facilities, and chances to compete for promising young athletes, aiming to create a stream of talent for national and international competitions.

E. Comparative Analysis: NCAA vs. Khelo India

The landscape of collegiate sports and athlete development varies significantly across different countries and cultures. This section aims to compare and contrast two notable approaches: the NCAA in the United States and the Khelo India initiative in India. By examining these two systems, we can gain insights into potential reforms and best practices to support young athletes while protecting their rights and well-being.

E.1. Governance Structures

E.1.1. NCAA Governance

The NCAA operates as a member-led organization, with institutions holding voting power in the decision-making process. 

Its governance structure includes:[23]

1. Board of Governors: Oversees association-wide issues.

   
   

2. Division-specific governing bodies (I, II, and III): Handle matters specific to each division.

   
   

3. Committees: Address various aspects of collegiate athletics, including eligibility, recruiting, and championships.

This structure has been criticized for prioritizing institutional and commercial interests over those of student-athletes.[24]

E.1.2. Khelo India Governance

Khelo India has a more centralized governance structure, operating under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.

 Key components include:[25]

1. National level steering committee: Chaired by the Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports.

   
   

2. State-level implementation committees: Oversee program execution at the regional level.

   
   

3. Specialized agencies: Handle talent identification, training, and infrastructure development.

This structure allows for more direct government oversight and potentially faster implementation of athlete-centric policies.

F. Analysing Issues Faced by Both Governing Bodies

F.1. Intersectionality in Student-Athlete Experiences

The experiences of student-athletes are significantly influenced by the intersection of various identity markers, including race, gender, and socioeconomic background. These factors create unique challenges and opportunities that both the NCAA and Khelo India must address:

1. Race and Representation:

   
   

   Leadership and mentorship within athletic departments influence how diverse athletes receive support and grow.[26]

   
   

2. Gender Equity:

   
   

   Ongoing challenges in implementing Title IX leads to resource disparities between men's and women's sports, impacting female athletes.[27]

   
   

3. Socioeconomic Factors: 

   
   

   Create barriers for people trying to access collegiate sports and influence the academic-athletic balance for student-athletes.

F.2. Health Implications

The physical and mental health impacts of collegiate athletics present ongoing challenges that require comprehensive approaches:

1. Physical Health Concerns:

   Chronic injuries in high-impact sports require effective injury prevention programs to safeguard athletes' long-term health. [28]

   
   

2. Mental Health Considerations:

   Student-athletes need comprehensive mental health support to address stress, anxiety, and identity issues stemming from performance pressures and career-ending injuries. [29]

F.3. Balance between Athletic and Academic Departments

1. Organizational Structure:

   
   

   Athletic success and academic integrity often clash, necessitating careful resource allocation and faculty oversight in athletic programs. [30]

   
   

2. Financial Considerations:

   
   

   The revenue generated by athletic departments significantly influences institutional decisions, impacting how they split up resources among sports programs and raises questions about whether current funding approaches can last.[31]

   
   

3. Academic Integration:

   
   

   Balancing athletic and academic commitments is crucial, with a need for support systems that promote educational success and accommodate student-athletes unique challenges.[32]

G. Potential Reforms

G.1. NCAA Reforms Inspired by Khelo India

Khelo India's approach offers several insights that could enhance athlete welfare in systems like the NCAA:

1. Holistic Development:

   
   

   Khelo India emphasizes not just sports performance but also education and personal development. This contrasts with criticisms of the NCAA's focus on athletic performance at the expense of academic achievement.

   
   

2. Early Intervention:

   
   

   By identifying talent at a young age, Khelo India provides support throughout an athlete's developmental years.[33] The NCAA could consider extending its influence to high school levels to ensure better preparation for collegiate athletics.

   
   

3. Financial Support:

   
   

   Khelo India offers direct financial assistance to athletes, reducing the burden on families and the risk of exploitation.[34] This model could inspire reforms in the NCAA's scholarship system and address concerns about athlete compensation.

   
   

4. Government Partnerships:

   
   

   While maintaining independence, the NCAA might explore partnerships with government agencies to enhance funding and oversight for athlete welfare programs.[35] 

   
   

5. Emphasis on Olympic Sports:

   
   

   Khelo India's focus on Olympic sports could encourage the NCAA to allocate more resources to non-revenue generating sports.

G.2. Khelo India Reforms Inspired by NCAA

While Khelo India has many strengths, there are areas where it could potentially benefit from the NCAA's experience:

1. Competitive Structure:

   
   

   The NCAA's well-established conference system and national championships could inspire Khelo India to develop a more structured competitive framework for university-level athletes.[36]

   
   

2. Athlete Representation:

   
   

   The NCAA has made strides in including athlete voices in decision-making processes. Khelo India could consider implementing similar athlete advisory committees.[37]

   
   

3. Media Rights and Exposure:

   
   

   The NCAA's success in broadcasting and media partnerships could provide a model for Khelo India to increase visibility and generate resources for athlete development.[38]

   
   

4. Alumni Networks:

   
   

   The strong alumni connections fostered by NCAA athletics could inspire Khelo India to develop similar networks to support athletes during and after their competitive careers.[39]

H. Conclusion

The landscape of college sports is undergoing a significant transformation, shaped by landmark legal cases and evolving governance models that aim to prioritize the rights and welfare of student-athletes. In the United States, the O'Bannon v. NCAA case fundamentally challenged the traditional notion of amateurism, prompting critical discussions about the compensation and treatment of athletes who contribute to a billion-dollar industry. This change now lets student-athletes make money from their Name Image, and Likeness (NIL), so they can monetize their brand while juggling school and sports. But this new freedom brings up some tough questions too, like how to keep things fair for athletes in less popular sports or those who come from poorer backgrounds.

Meanwhile, India's Khelo India initiative presents an alternative approach, focusing on helping athletes grow from the ground up. This plan aims to get lots of people involved in sports and give young athletes the tools they need. Khelo India tries to create a supportive setting that balances sports and school. Unlike the NCAA’s competitive focus primarily on collegiate sports, Khelo India’s framework includes comprehensive support systems that target athletes from when they're in school through college, aiming to build a strong sporting culture across the country.

Comparing the NCAA and Khelo India reveals contrasting philosophies in sports governance. While the NCAA has faced criticism for its restrictive policies and the exploitation of student-athletes, Khelo India's model focuses on holistic development and long-term athlete welfare. This comparison raises important questions about the ideal structure for nurturing young athletes while protecting their rights and interests.

Both systems have valuable lessons to share. The NCAA can learn from Khelo India’s inclusive policies and emphasis on education, ensuring that student-athletes are viewed as well-rounded people instead of just competitors. Conversely, Khelo India can benefit from the NCAA’s established competitive structure and the importance of athlete representation in decision-making processes.

Ultimately, the future of college sports hinges on a collaborative effort to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and respect for student-athletes. By prioritizing their well-being and fostering environments conducive to personal and academic growth, we can create a landscape where all athletes, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to thrive both on and off the field. As these systems evolve, they must continue to advocate for reforms that ensure the rights of student-athletes are safeguarded, paving the way for a more equitable and just future in sports.

*The Author is a legal Scholar from Jindal Global Law School, India

(The Image used here is for representative purposes only)

References:

1. Wong, G. M. (2010). Essentials of Sports Law (4th ed.). ABC-CLIO.

2. O'Bannon v. NCAA, 7 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

3. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. (2018). Khelo India - National Programme for Development of Sports.

4. Lewis, M. (2006). The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game. W. W. Norton & Company.

5. Associated Press. (2023, August 14). 'Blind Side' subject Oher alleges Tuohys actually placed him in conservatorship, didn't adopt him. ESPN.

6. Borzi, P. (2023, August 17). Michael Oher's Conservatorship Lawsuit Exposes Exploitation in College Sports. Forbes.

7. O'Bannon v. NCAA, 7 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

8. Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 1.

9. Wong, G. M., Deubert, C. R., & Hayek, J. (2015). NCAA Division I Athletic Directors: An Analysis of the Responsibilities, Qualifications and Characteristics. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 22(1), 1-73.

10. Edelman, M. (2014). The Future of Amateurism After Antitrust Scrutiny: Why a Win for the Plaintiffs in the NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation Will Not Lead to the Demise of College Sports. Oregon Law Review, 92(4), 1019-1056.

11. Hobson, W., & Strauss, B. (2021, June 30). NCAA adopts interim name, image and likeness policy. The Washington Post.

12. Berkowitz, S., & Prisbell, E. (2015, January 17). NCAA increases value of scholarships in historic vote. USA Today.

13. NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021).

14. Berkowitz, S. (2021). Supreme Court unanimously rules against NCAA in dispute over student-athlete compensation. USA Today.

15. McCann, M. (2021). Why the Supreme Court's NCAA Decision Is More Complicated Than It Seems. Sportico.

16. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2021, June 30). NCAA adopts interim name, image and likeness policy.

17. Wilson, K. L., Davis, R. T., & Anderson, M. (2023). Name, image, and likeness legislation: Early impacts on collegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 15-28.

18. Cooper, J. N., & Cooper, J. E. (2021). Beyond the playing field: The intersectionality of race, gender, and athletics in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 92(4), 545-570.

19. McKee, A. C., Alosco, M. L., & Mez, J. (2022). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy and collegiate athletics: Current understanding and future directions. Neurology Research International, 15(2), 112-128.

20. Smith, R. K., & Johnson, M. A. (2023). Financial implications of collegiate athletics: A comprehensive analysis of Power Five conferences. Journal of Sport Management, 37(1), 45-62.

21. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. (2018). Khelo India Programme.

22. Chopra, A. (2019). The Impact of Khelo India on Grassroots Sports Development. Journal of Indian Sports Management, 15(2), 45-60.

23. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2023). NCAA Governance.

24. Smith, R. K. (2020). The NCAA's Governance Structure: The Impact on Decision Making. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 30(1), 1-22

25. Kumar, S. (2021). Governance Models in Sports: A Comparative Study of Khelo India and Western Approaches. International Journal of Sports Policy and Politics, 13(3), 415-430.

26. Williams, R. D., & Cooper, J. N. (2023). Race and leadership in collegiate athletics: A critical examination. Journal of Sport Management, 37(5), 425-440.

27. Robinson, S. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2023). Gender equity in collegiate athletics: Progress and persistent challenges. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 31(2), 112-128.

28. Miller, J. R., & Brown, S. (2023). Long-term health outcomes in collegiate athletes: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 51(8), 2145-2160.

29. Thompson, R. A., & Carter, J. E. (2023). Mental health challenges in collegiate athletics: Current trends and interventions. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 17(3), 215-230.

30. Roberts, C. M., & Johnson, P. (2023). Athletic department governance: Balancing academic and athletic priorities. Journal of Higher Education, 94(5), 678-695.

31. Henderson, T. L., & Parker, R. (2023). Financial sustainability in collegiate athletics: Challenges and solutions. Sport Management Review, 26(4), 445-460.

32. Chen, L., & Thompson, M. (2023). Faculty perspectives on student-athlete academic support: A qualitative study. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 60(4), 412-427.

33. Singh, R., & Joshi, A. (2020). Early Talent Identification in Indian Sports: The Khelo India Model. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(1), 2080-2092.

34. Mehta, K. (2021). Financial Support Systems for Athletes: A Global Perspective. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 56(5), 621-638.

35. Johnson, M. (2021). Government Involvement in Sports Governance: International Perspectives. Sport Management Review, 24(3), 410-425.

36. Dutta, R. (2023). Competitive Structures in Collegiate Sports: A Global Perspective. International Journal of Sport Management, 24(3), 280-295.

37. Athlete Advisory Committee. (2022). Student-Athlete Voice in NCAA Governance. NCAA Research Report.

38. Wilson, B. (2023). Media Rights and Revenue Generation in Collegiate Sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 32(2), 110-125.

39. Chauhan, N. (2022). The Role of Alumni Networks in Athlete Development and Support. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(3), 415-430.