Court Denies Class Certification in NCAA Walk-On Football Players Antitrust Case

On May 3, a federal district court in the Western District of Washington denied class certification in an antitrust case filed by walk-on NCAA football players challenging limits on the number of scholarships. The case is In re NCAA 1-A Walk-on Football Players Litigation, W.D. Wash., No. C0-1254C (May 3, 2006). The Westlaw cite is 2006 WL 1207915. The plaintiffs in this case had previously survived a motion to dismiss. See 398 F.Supp.2d 1144, available here.

The putative plaintiff class consisted of a subset of those walk-on players from Division I Schools for the 2000-2001 through 2003-2004 seasons (those walk-ons who participated in spring practice with the team, and thus were closest to making the “cut” for a scholarship). The plaintiffs challenged NCAA Bylaw 15.5.5, which caps the number of scholarships for each DI-A school at 85. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Sherman Act §1 and §2 (their complaint is here). The §1 claim alleged that the NCAA operated a classic cartel to exercise monopsony purchasing power and restrict competition in the market for football players, an input market for DI-A college football. The §2 claim asserted that the NCAA were engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize the “big time college football” market.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, explaining, “The facts going to the violation are also identical for each class member. All of the factual and legal inquiries will be the same to establish the relevant market, illegality, characterization of Bylaw 15.5.5 as a horizontal restraint, injury to competition, and the propriety of an injunction. Where the required proof diverges significantly is at the antitrust injury and damages stages . . . .”

The court continued, “[O]nce the existence of an antitrust violation has been fully litigated, the predominance of common issues will fade quickly. . . . The individualized determinations that will be required to prove antitrust injury and damages provide an insurmountable barrier to class treatment.” In a nutshell, the court felt that only some of the plaintiffs would have been damaged, since not all of them would have received scholarship even if the cap on scholarships were lifted. This decision will no doubt be appealed.

Posted in: