Article

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Future of College Athletics Through the Lens of Labor Laws

---

Abstract

The economic landscape of collegiate athletics has undergone seismic shifts, yet the legal classification of student-athletes remains frozen in an amateur model increasingly divorced from reality. This article examines the trajectory of NCAA antitrust litigation, from Board of Regents (1984) through O'Bannon (2016) to Alston (2021), to argue that labor law frameworks offer a more coherent regulatory approach than continued reliance on antitrust doctrine. While the Board of Regents established NCAA rules for Division I college athletes as subject to antitrust scrutiny and Alston dismantled education-related compensation restrictions, these victories have merely chipped away at the amateur model without addressing the fundamental power imbalance between athletes and institutions. The article contends that student-athletes increasingly resemble employees under common law tests, performing services that generate billions in revenue while institutions exercise substantial control over their athletic labor. However, the NCAA's amateur classification shields this relationship from minimum wage laws, workers' compensation, and collective bargaining rights. By analyzing the employee/independent contractor distinction, joint employer doctrine, and potential NLRB jurisdiction, this article proposes a reimagined legal framework, recognizing student-athletes as employees entitled to labor law protections. This shift would not eliminate collegiate athletics but would establish transparent, equitable compensation structures and workplace protections. The current system's failure lies not with athletes seeking fair treatment, but with an exploitative model that courts have been reluctant to fully dismantle.

Keywords: college athletics, labor laws