In a recent motion to dismiss a lawsuit arguing that athletes at NCAA member institutions are employees and should be paid, the representation for the NCAA has argued that because prisoners don’t have to be paid for labor, schools shouldn’t have to pay athletes either.
The current landscape of college athletics in the United States has often been criticized with the analogy of it being the modern day “plantation.” The idea is that akin to slaveowners in the United States in the 19th century and prior, NCAA member institutions compel athletes to provide labor for them in exchange for a meager return while the NCAA, conferences and schools reap rewards that outweigh the investment many times over.
In a recent legal brief filed by lawyers representing the NCAA in a lawsuit, the NCAA has now taken a page from that ideology which has been used to criticize it.
A quick US history lesson necessary to understand this situation: the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America made it illegal for any person to force another person to work in exchange for no compensation. It has one significant exception, however. Those people convicted of certain crimes can be forced to work without pay.
In 1992, a man in the Illinois penal system named Daniel Vanskike sued the state’s department of corrections, arguing that he should be paid for his work while incarcerated. He lost the suit because of that exemption in the 13th Amendment. The case became known as Vanskike v. Peters.
Currently a case making a similar argument about NCAA athletes is being litigated. The NCAA has filed its motion to dismiss the suit, Livers v. NCAA. On four occasions in making its argument for why Livers should be dismissed, the brief references Vanskike v. Peters as precedent.
In another brief filed by several NCAA member institutions supporting the NCAA’s motion to dismiss, those schools also reference Vanskike v. Peters and state that the result of that case is that normal labor laws do not apply “when the broader and more more fundamental economic realities of the relationship is apparent.”
In more simple language, the dynamics of the relationship between the NCAA, its member institutions and the athletes are similar to the relationship between prisons and their populations, so NCAA member-institutions should enjoy the same protection from normal labor laws that prisons receive.
The problem with making this legal argument is that the line connecting those dots is broad. By stating that the relationship between athletes and their schools is identical to that between prisons and prisoners, the likening of athletes to prisoners is inherent.
Next: 25 Ugliest Alternate Uniforms In History
Being athletically gifted and young comes with its own set of challenges and perks. Apparently according to the NCAA’s reasoning in seeking to dismiss Livers, it’s a crime.