Litigation began in September of 2016, when former University of Southern California (USC) linebacker Lamar Dawson filed a putative class action lawsuit. The Complaint alleges violations against both the NCAA and Pac-12 Conference. Dawson alleges that his rights in the Fair Labor Standards Act and other California labor laws have been violated because of his failure to receive pay for hours worked and overtime compensation. Precedent has delineated that the Court does not consider student-athletes to be employees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision which affirmed a District Court’s decision and dismissed a student-athlete’s complaint by specifically stating that these students “do not have any real expectation of earning an income” and that “student-athletic “play” is not “work,” at least as the term is used in the FLSA.” Dawson’s claiming that his case is different, because as opposed to several other tried cases which included non-profitable sports, USC football is highly profitable. Further, Dawson has stated that USC simply would not profit “if it were not for the on-the-field efforts of the players.” There is little debate on the time and sacrificial efforts made by student-athletes. The question still stands, however, if they can be deemed employees.
Counsel for the NCAA has called into question Dawson’s assertion of being tried differently solely because of revenue generated by USC Football by stating that “there is no case law holding the FLSA coverage turns on the amount of money an activity generates.” Further, an NCAA study shows that a significant number of Division One Football teams do not generate revenue, and in fact expenses exceed generated revenue. This may provide evidence that these programs do not exist solely to make profit. Language from Chapter 10 of the Department of Labor Handbook states that “activities of students in such programs (intercollegiate athletics), conducted primarily for the benefit of the participants, are not work.” The Handbook goes on to further state “Under the FLSA, they do not result in an employer-employee relationship between the student and the school.” Contrasted with Dawson’s attorney’s argument, “Players whose work allows the NCAA to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue are employees,” show that there is clearly conflicted ideology on student-athlete eligibility as employees.
Precedent has shown that athletes claiming to be employees, and claiming employee rights, have faced roadblocks. Dawson’s argument might not be enough to conclusively determine specific student-athletes as employees, since research has shown profits are not highly lucrative for many Division One programs. Further, it seems that Dawson must also distinguish himself from other cases on the grounds that his particular collegiate career took place at a highly profitable football program. Should he be tried differently on these grounds? Hopefully the popularity of March Madness and other NCAA tournaments will continue to bring attention to this debate.
