{shortcode-314fcd5c5299348ecaf5c903656d346bfe5808bb}
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Ivy League last Thursday that sought to end the League’s prohibition of athletic scholarships.
U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove the Ancient Eight were engaging in an antitrust violation.
The decision comes over a year-and-a-half after the lawsuit — which named Harvard University as a co-defendant — was filed by Tamenang Choh and Grace Kirk in Connecticut.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued the Ivy League policy of only allowing need-based financial aid instead of athletic scholarships represented a “restraint of trade.”
They also alleged Ivy League athletes pay more for their education and are not properly compensated “for the athletic services they provide” because they aren’t receiving athletic scholarships.
Thompson’s dismissal pointed to other universities outside of the Ivy League — such as Stanford University, Duke University, the University of Notre Dame, and Rice University — which provide athletic scholarships alongside high quality education, undercutting the plaintiffs’ argument that the Ivy League represented a unique and anti-competitive market.
He also ruled that the Ivy League’s policy for need-based financial aid has “altruistic motives” and is not just for a “revenue maximizing purpose.”
Choh’s filing was also ruled as outside the statute of limitations, since the lawsuit was filed more than four years after he enrolled at Brown. Thompson did not rule Kirk’s complaint as outside the statute of limitations.
Despite the decision, the case will likely be appealed, according to Choh and Krik’s attorney Eric L. Cramer.
“We and our clients are obviously disappointed with the decision,” Cramer wrote in a statement. “We almost certainly will appeal and are optimistic about our chances for reversal.”
The dismissal comes as the Ivy League attempts to adjust to the changing landscape of athletic compensation in the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
With the dismissal, need-based financial aid will remain in place, but changes to athlete compensation could still be in the Ivy League’s future.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that college athletes could profit off of their name, image, and likeness — opening the floodgates for athletes to earn money and for additional lawsuits against the NCAA.
Since the decision, NIL collectives — booster-funded groups that pay student athletes — have exploded at many universities and, just last week, a $2.8 billion NCAA settlement that would compensate some former athletes and allow schools to directly pay athletes received preliminary approval by a judge.
Despite these changes, Ivy League athletes have largely remained untouched, as the League has yet to see any NIL collectives and athletes are left to navigate deals individually.
The university athletics scene has also seen an influx of unionizing action.
In March, the Dartmouth men’s basketball team voted to unionize, and in July, a judge allowed a case to move forward that could make some college athletes employees of their university.
Harvard Athletic Director Erin McDermott told Harvard Magazine she is not against paying athletes in the future, as long as that payment is tied to NIL deals.
Still, in an interview with The Crimson in April, McDermott emphasized that academics are still a priority for Harvard over the University’s competitiveness in paying athletes.
“We’ve been able to stay competitive even though we don’t give athletic scholarships,” McDermott said.
“We really want to continue thinking about this athletic experience as part of the educational mission here, that we are truly a co-curricular activity and extension of the classroom,” she added.
—Staff writer Jo B. Lemann can be reached at jo.lemann@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @Jo_Lemann.
