The Fair Pay to Play Act and the Contribution of New Economic Opportunities for College Athletes in California
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Broad autonomous powers over the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s governance of college athletes and U.S. antitrust law are related principles, but they also have potential conflicts. Self-autonomy in regulating college athletes, the principle that NCAA and collegiate athletic conferences can autonomously regulate and sanction collegiate athletics, can promote economic activity and sports efficiency. However, unrestricted self-regulation by the NCAA can lead to antitrust practices, such as monopolies or cartels, which is why antitrust law exists to regulate U.S. industry markets and prevent such monopolistic and abusive conduct in U.S. Competition Policy. This paper offers an analysis of the legal and sports implications of college athletes' economic opportunities to gain reasonable compensation, focusing on legal aspects of the California Fair Pay to Play Act, but drawing on evidence and authorities from the United States where appropriate. It concludes that, while the sports governance of the NCAA is nationally effective, it is regulatorily and legally problematic. It closes with discussions for sports regulators to comply with antitrust laws and avoid obligations or actions that restrain college athletes’ compensation in the NCAA’s college sports industry.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of TCI is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, unless otherwise stated. Please read our Policies page for more information...
References
Bailey, A. A., Rapp, G. C., & Tysiak, S. (2025). NIL education at universities as student athletes face the wild west. Fordham Law Review, 93(5), 1546-1557.
Bank, A. (2020). The Olympic-sized loophole in California’s Fair Pay to Play Act. Columbia Law Review Forum, 120, 109–123. (UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 19-39).
Banks, A. (2022). The Supreme Court gets the ball rolling: NCAA v. Alston and Title IX. Northwestern University Law Review, 117(2), 549-576.
Blakely, C. (2024). NCAA v. Alston (case notes). Tennessee Law Review, 90(2), 441-446.
Brown, K., & Williams, A. (2020). Reenvisioning pay for play. Contexts, 19(1), 66-67.
Carrier, M. A., & Sagers, C. L. (2021). The Alston case: Why the NCAA did not deserve antitrust immunity and did not succeed under a rule-of-reason analysis. George Mason Law Review, 28(4), 1461.
Ehrlich, S. C. (2022). A three-tiered circuit split: Why the Supreme Court was right to hear NCAA v. Alston. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 32, 1–61.
Flint, K. L. (2022). More money, fewer problems: A post-Alston v. NCAA approach to reducing gender inequities in sports. Public Interest Law Review, 25(2), 153-176.
Grow, N. (2022). The future of college sports after Alston: Reforming the NCAA via conditional antitrust immunity. William & Mary Law Review, 64(2), 385-445.
Hamilton, S. (2025). A new curveball: An analysis of the current NIL battle that is destabilizing the landscape of college athletics. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 32(1), 143-172.
Holden, J. T., Edelman, M., Baker, T. A., III, & Shuman, A. G. (2022). Reimaging the governance of college sports after Alston. Florida Law Review, 74(3), 427-481.
Jessop, A., Baker, T. A., III, Tweedie, J. W., & Holden, J. T. (2023). Charting a new path: Regulating college athlete name, image and likeness after NCAA v. Alston through collective bargaining. Journal of Sport Management, 37(5), 307–318.
Lovell, D., & Mallinson, D. J. (2023). Cash rules everything around me: The expansion of NCAA name, image, and likeness policy among the states. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 9(3), 338-363.
McCann, M. A. (2021). Jump ball: The unsettled law of representing college basketball stars and monetizing their names, images, and likeness. Santa Clara Law Review, 61(1), 177-218.
McDonnell, P. (2020). California’s Fair Pay to Play Act and its fight against the Commerce Clause. Journal of Law & Commerce, 39(1), 75-94.
Meares, W., Hunter, L., Ginn, M., & Hatcher, W. (2024). NIL and higher education: An exploration of the early impact of NIL on fundraising and competition in universities and athletic departments. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 17(3), 1-23.
Murry, T. J. (2022). The path to employee status for college athletes post-Alston. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 24(4), 790-818.
Noll, R. G. (2022). Sports economics on trial: Alston v. NCAA. Journal of Sports Economics, 23(6), 826-845.
Nowak, M. (2022). Student-athletes' push for compensation: Analyzing the impact of Alston v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (Alston II), 958 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2020). Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 29(1), 35-84.
Posivak, B. (2023). The demise of the hub-and-spoke cartel and the rise of the student athlete: A significant step toward a new era of conferences in NCAA v. Alston. University of Miami Business Law Review, 31(1), 38-89.
Salvestrin, J. (2024). Upon further review, the ruling on the field has been overturned: The new era of college athletics following NCAA v. Alston. Santa Clara Law Review, 63(2), 353-391.
Schwabe, P. A. (2020). The modern pay for play model: Laws that protect student-athletes’ fundamental right to commercialize their names, images, and likeness. Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, 15(1), 289-312.
Tatos, T., & Singer, H. (2022). Alston v NCAA: Lessons American college athletics can offer about concentration and monopsony power in labour markets. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 10(2), 404–417.
Taylor, A. (2022). The role of precedent in modern law. Rutgers University Law Review, 75(1), 363–400.
Way, G. (2024). The NIL paradox: How unfettered NIL rights will shrink student-athlete opportunities. Texas A&M Law Review, 11(4), 949–997.
Zaia, J. (2025). The history and future of amateurism in college sports. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 35(2), 503-558.
