The debate over whether college athletes should be considered employees has intensified with every new court ruling and policy change. College athletes have filed multiple legal cases challenging the NCAA. These cases have prompted the association to revise its interpretation and enforcement of amateurism policies.

The White v. NCAA settlement expanded the value of athletic scholarships, allowing schools to provide health insurance to athletes. This change occurred in January 2008 — before the NCAA had limited scholarships to tuition, room, board and fees.

In 2015, the NCAA began allowing athletes to receive compensation for the “full cost of attendance” following the O’Bannon v. NCAA ruling. In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in NCAA v. Alston that the association could not restrict education-related payments to student athletes, indicating that some of its practices may be deemed anti-competitive.

The introduction of name, image and likeness rights in 2021 added another dimension, allowing athletes to monetize their personal brands while enrolled. This decision created considerable uncertainty about how amateurism would be defined and enforced following the legalization of NIL contracts.

The NIL era also blurred the boundary between student and worker, intensifying the push to frame athletes as employees. College sports — once viewed as an extension of education — now often serve as a platform for professional exposure and profit.

There are many potential harms for students. Researchers have linked participation in sports to risks for student well-being, including injuries, recovery challenges and mental health issues. In........

© Sports Business Journal