It’s Time to Consider High-Value Collegiate Athletes as Professionals
Written by Henry Joliet
On Tuesday, University of Virginia quarterback Chandler Morris filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requesting a seventh season of eligibility. Morris, a Class of 2020 commit to the University of Oklahoma, seeks a preliminary injunction that would overrule the NCAA ruling and classify his 2022 season with Texas Christian University as a medical redshirt year. The NCAA argues that Morris does not qualify for the medical redshirt because he played in three more games that season after suffering a knee injury in the season opener. Although he has already been enrolled in college for six years–directly violating NCAA Bylaw 12.6.1 that limits a student-athlete to a five-year clock–Morris joins an increasing population of athletes remaining in college past traditional exit points. Fellow quarterbacks Joey Aguilar and Trinidad Chambliss have also tried the courts in separate districts for another season with split success. The reason for all these appeals around NCAA rules: they would earn significant one-year salaries from name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals. As former Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones stated: “Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL.” Given the earning potential of modern athletes, the most financially sustainable solution would be to classify high-earning student-athletes as university professionals.
The NIL craze started in 2021 with a unanimous ruling in NCAA v. Alston, where the Supreme Court determined that amateurism was no longer a requirement for college athletics. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a particularly harsh concurring opinion that berated the NCAA for “price-fixing labor” and “suppressing the pay of student-athletes.” From that moment forward, the Court ruled that the NCAA would violate antitrust laws if it denied payments to student-athletes for the explicit reason that college athletics is supposed to be amateur.
Five years after that decision, the NCAA estimates the total payments to student-athletes to be $2.3 billion, with $2 billion originating directly from the school or school-affiliated collectives. Such staggering sums invite legal controversy as schools try to protect their athletic investments. Student-athletes are now allowed to retain agents and sign contracts, steps that would have gotten the athlete banned from college athletics a mere decade ago. However, contractual obligations are beginning to conflict with a student’s ability to attend whichever university they want. In 2024, Duke University signed former Tulane star Darian Mensah to a two-year NIL contract worth $8 million. After a successful first year, Mensah transferred to the University of Miami, sparking allegations of tampering and questions about the validity of a multi-year student-athlete contract. By the letter of the contract, Duke had bought Mensah’s NIL rights, not his services as a quarterback, so he could technically play for Miami while Duke controlled his personal brand. The case ended with a settlement, depriving the country of a true legal fight over the validity of a “pay-for-play” contract that did not directly pay for play. Mensah’s case is one of many contractual disputes that have arisen as contracts become more common and restrictive, highlighting the NCAA’s ineffectiveness and the uncertainty of a non-regulated future for college athletics.
The grounds for professionalism in college athletics have been laid out before. The Dartmouth University men’s basketball team was granted permission to unionize in 2024, before withdrawing their petition in fear that the Trump administration would revoke their permission and harm future efforts. A similar case occurred in 2015, where the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declined to assert judgment after a NLRB director declared the Northwestern University football team to be university employees. Despite potential pushback from the Trump administration, unionization could ultimately benefit universities and the NCAA. Although all professional leagues face contentious labor negotiations with their respective players’ unions, they manage through while keeping tremendous profitability. Hallmarks of each collective bargaining agreement include salary restrictions for young players and arbitration systems to prevent financially ruinous competition. As a new revenue-sharing plan takes effect this year, athletic departments face bleak profit-and-loss statements. Even before the plan went into effect, all 136 schools at the FBS (highest) level of collegiate football reported operating losses, subsidizing those losses by collecting generous gifts or borrowing money from the school’s general fund. Other solutions have seen colleges close or cut funding to non-revenue sports such as tennis, track & field, swimming and diving, and other Olympic sports in order to remain financially competitive. Moving towards collective bargaining in college athletics would be difficult and expensive, as it would require employee benefits and protections. However, it could limit the “arms race” currently happening to attract top talent.
The main arguments against the classification of college athletes as employees fall on tradition and flexibility. First, as Kavanaugh pointed out, colleges did not pay athletes because the concept of college athletics relied on the traditional spirit of amateurism. This argument has all but completely died in the world of eight-figure deals, but the sentiment remains. Second, the steps assigned for this change would limit athletes’ earning potential to stop reckless outflows. Furthermore, obligating student-athletes to complete their contracts at schools would hamper true transfers related to education or culture.
Ultimately, there is no solution without drawbacks in the new world of collegiate NIL. Either athletes will be forced into lower-cost contracts, or schools will go bankrupt trying to keep up the pace. However, designating the high-earning athletes as professionals would lighten the cost on universities while providing proper systems for athletes to transfer between schools and resolve disputes. Although this would destroy the myth of amateurism, it might protect the institution of college sports from the deregulated chaos.
