National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

February 16, 1998

NCAA files petition involving restricted-earnings position

The NCAA has filed a petition for the rehearing by all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit of a decision involving the restricted-earnings coaching position.

On January 25, the appeals court announced that it had upheld the ruling of a federal district court that the NCAA had acted in violation of federal antitrust laws by capping the earnings on compensation for certain entry-level coaches.

The NCAA's petition for the en banc hearing would have to be granted by the entire appeals court. The district court ruling was upheld by a panel of three judges.

The NCAA's petition for the en banc hearing is based on three points:

  • The appeals court erred by overlooking the distinction between output restraints (such as forbidding members from selling certain broadcast rights) and input restraints (such as limiting what schools may pay certain coaches). The NCAA argues that input restraints such as the restricted-earnings rule are not obviously anticompetitive and until the current case, no court had ever invalidated an NCAA input restraint as being anticompetitive. Indeed, input restraints such as limits on the number of scholarships and limits on the number of coaches have been upheld many times in the past.

  • Coaches were improperly relieved of the burden of showing substantial anticompetitive effect, in part because the NCAA was said not to dispute that the rule "effectively reduced restricted-earnings coaches' salaries." The record contains no such concession.

  • Some conception of the "market" is required in order to assess anticompetitive effect. The NCAA was precluded from providing an analysis of the market, having been pre-empted by the erroneous conclusion noted in the previous paragraph.

    In the meantime, both the NCAA and lawyers for the plaintiffs have said that they are willing to attempt to settle the case through mediation, as requested by U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn H. Vratil.

    The parties are working to select a mediator. Once that is accomplished, Vratil will establish the ground rules for mediation. The damages phase of the trial is still scheduled to begin April 1.