FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to intervene in a Fourth Circuit decision, which maintains that student athletes do not possess a business or property interest in their NCAA eligibility, despite the recent changes allowing them to earn compensation. This decision effectively sidelines any further judicial review of the matter, leaving intact the lower court's stance on the value of NCAA eligibility.

Justices Won't Probe Athlete's Interest In NCAA Eligibility : Background of the Case

The justices' decision was a response to a petition by Brian Bowen II, a former collegiate athlete whose potential basketball career was jeopardized by a bribery scandal. Bowen's petition aimed to challenge a three-judge panel's ruling that dismissed his claim against Adidas America Inc., which was accused of ending his athletic career by allegedly offering his father $100,000 to secure his enrollment at the University of Louisville. The panel concluded that Bowen's lawsuit was not viable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as he lacked a tangible interest in his NCAA eligibility.

The Implications of NCAA v. Alston

Despite the Supreme Court's landmark 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which abolished the prohibition on compensation for college athletes, the appellate panel held that eligibility to participate in college sports does not constitute a material asset owned by the athletes. This interpretation has sparked controversy, particularly in light of the increasing commercialization of college sports.

Justices Won't Probe Athlete's Interest In NCAA Eligibility : Bowen's Argument

Bowen contended that this interpretation leads to an "untenable situation" where student athletes, now able to earn from their athletic endeavors, have no legal recourse when their eligibility is jeopardized unlawfully. He argued that the NCAA's role in fostering the athletic development of post-high-school athletes before they enter professional drafts indicates that athletes indeed have a valuable business or property interest in their eligibility.

Legal Representation and Proceedings

Adidas chose not to respond to Bowen's appeal, which originated from a 2017 federal criminal investigation involving alleged bribes to basketball recruits, including Bowen, to attend universities sponsored by Adidas. This scandal led to the convictions of several Adidas associates.

Bowen, who never played for Louisville due to the scandal, filed a civil lawsuit in 2018 claiming he was denied the opportunity due to the corruption scandal that implicated his father. Although a South Carolina judge dismissed his lawsuit, Bowen highlighted that the university received restitution in a parallel suit for the damages incurred when he lost his eligibility.

Justices Won't Probe Athlete's Interest In NCAA Eligibility : Legal Teams

Bowen is represented by Colin V. Ram, W. Mullins McLeod Jr., and Kristen F. Cooper of McLeod Law Group LLC, along with William W. Wilkins of Maynard Nexsen PC. Adidas is represented by William H. Taft V of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision not to review the case underscores the complexities and evolving nature of NCAA eligibility and athlete compensation, a topic that continues to generate debate across the sports and legal landscapes.