CARE-FC Statement

“Today, professional coaches, professional managers and money-minded presidents have total control. It is time to give back to the students who play sports the freedoms they deserve. At a minimum, they are entitled to freedoms enjoyed by their fellow students.”

Walter Byers, first full-time executive director of the NCAA, 1995, p. 398.


The multibillion-dollar college-sport industry is built on the work of an unnamed and unrecognized labor force, the majority of who are racial minorities (Smith, 2014; Staurowsky, 2013). As scholars who have studied these issues for many years, we are deeply troubled by the failure of higher education and college sport officials to acknowledge college football and men’s basketball players in major programs as employees with rights to bargain collectively. We are further concerned that in recent months state legislators in Ohio and Michigan have singled out college athletes as a class of citizens to be denied employee status (Associated Press, 2014; Heinlein, 2014).

For decades, the athletes who serve as the centerpiece of the college sport business have been denied access to fair compensation (Jenkins v. NCAA, 2014; Johnson v. NCAA, 2014; Marshall v. ESPN et al., 2014; O’Bannon v. NCAA, 2014; Rock v. NCAA, 2013; Sackos v. NCAA, 2014), adequate health care protections (Arrington v. NCAA, 2011; Doughty v. NCAA, 2013; Owens v. NCAA, 2011; Sheely v. NCAA, 2013), due process (Johnson, 2010; Oliver v. NCAA, 2009) and avenues to shape, contest, and respond to the rules imposed on them (College Athlete Players Association v. Northwestern, 2014). Because these players have limited rights to bargain their conditions of employment (as of this writing, Northwestern football players have this right) or to shape their educational opportunities, they must resort to lawsuits and appeals to the court of public opinion to have their grievances addressed. The issues college players are currently raising through multiple lawsuits, regardless of legal theory, stem from the denial of basic civil rights within a system designed to regulate and control the players themselves, their movement within the college sport marketplace, and their value as commodities (Belzer & Schwarz, 2012; Branch, 2011; Hawkins, 2010a, 2010b; Paule & Flett, 2011; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013; Southall & Weiler, 2014; Staurowsky, in press, 2014a, 2014b). College football players and men’s basketball players, as human beings, are too often subjected to treatment that strips them of opportunities for their own self-determination and personal development.

The Myth of the “Student-Athlete” & Its Implications For College Athlete Employees

Since the 1930s, college football and men’s basketball players have challenged their institutions to provide fair compensation and recognition for their work, threatened work stoppages, and pursued relief from the expense of long-term medical care for injuries sustained while playing (Gurney & Southall, 2012; Karcher, 2012, 2014; Oriard, 2009; Southall, Eckard, Nagel, Keith, & Blake, 2014; Staurowsky, 2014a, 2014b). Until recently, that history has largely been obscured through the strategic execution of a propaganda campaign on the part of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to cast college football and men’s basketball players in mass-media televised events as “student-athletes” whose primary role on college campuses is to earn college degrees while playing their sports as an avocation. The “student-athlete” term of art was originally crafted to aid the NCAA in avoiding worker’s compensation claims for injured athletes and/or their families (McCormick & McCormick, 2006; McCormick & McCormick, 2008; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998; Staurowsky & Sack, 2005; University of Denver v. Nemeth, 1953; Van Horn v. Industrial Accident Commission, 1963). The first full-time executive director of the NCAA, Walter Byers, explained in his memoir that in response to “the dreaded notion” that athletes might gain worker’s compensation coverage,

[W]e crafted the term student-athlete, and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations as a mandated substitute for such words as players and athletes. We told college publicists to speak of ‘college teams,’ not football or basketball ‘clubs,’ a word
common to the pros (p. 69).

In its quest to devise a status for college athletes unlike any other in American labor, the “amateur student-athlete” classification leaves college football and men’s basketball players in a netherworld where their rights are blocked by definitional subterfuge (Staurowsky, 2014b). As Rosado Marzan (2014) wrote in an amicus brief filed by 19 law professors from around the United States in support of college football players at Northwestern,

…the terms “student” and “employee” are not opposites; you can be both one and the other simultaneously. In fact, many are: it is extremely common for students to work jobs, including ones on the campus cafeteria, for example. But the difference between the student school cafeteria worker and the football player is that there are immense profits in college football, and the Employer will continue to try to convince society that these players are “student-athletes,” which for some magical reason apparently means they have no statutory rights (p. 33).

Moreover, the framing of college sport participation as a “privilege” provided by paternalistic institutions of higher education, forces college athletes to relinquish their rights to engage freely in public dialogue on matters of their own interest. Consequently, viewed by some as ungrateful and entitled, these athletes are not only denied employee status, but are also prevented from exercising their rights to due process, to seek their value freely within the college sport marketplace, and to advocate effectively on their own behalf.

To sustain this unique status, the NCAA regulatory scheme recasts payment for athletes’ services as “grants-in-aid” (more commonly known as “athletic scholarships”). While NCAA officials have long argued this characterization was established to create a “clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports” so as to prevent the exploitation of athletes by commercial entities, Byers described it as just another payment system. Writing in 1995, he stated: “in 1956, the colleges, acting through the NCAA in the name of ‘amateurism’, installed their own pay system called the athletics grant-in-aid or athletics ‘scholarship.’” (p. 65). Protestations aside, the NCAA and its members are not opposed to paying athletes under the principle of amateurism. As its own definition of pay reveals, the opposition is to paying athletes anything above what the NCAA wishes to pay (Staurowsky, 2004; Smith & Hattery, 2011).

That this significant conflict of interest has served the NCAA’s and its member schools’ power structure to the detriment of college athletes is revealed in the observation of Fritz Crisler, athletic director at the University of Michigan at the time the NCAA’s pay for play system was codified in 1956. He is reported to have observed, “We’re saying that these youngsters are amateurs . . . and nobody should be permitted to professionalize them except the colleges. The colleges can pay them to play” (Quoted in Byers, p. 74). Byers noted further that the NCAA’s action on the athletic scholarship amounted to “…foreswearing old amateur principles without admitting it” (p. 74).

Writing about the college labor market in a 1972 letter to Amherst College President, John William Ward, Byers stated:

Athletic programs[,] which depend on huge media-oriented audiences[,] compel college athletes to perform like professionals without anything near commensurate compensation. In the marketplace such practices run counter to standard labor ethics; in an educational context they affront common sense. The medium of exchange in the business of big time semiprofessional intercollegiate athletics is the grant-in-aid or scholarship … (as quoted in Solomon, 2014).

Over time, the athletic scholarship became a tool of control over the college athlete labor market. This was most vividly demonstrated at the end of the civil rights movement and Vietnam War era, a time when athlete protests on college campuses were threatening the established order, requiring coaches to adjust to athlete requests and demands to be treated humanely (Underwood, 1969, Henderson, 2013; Demas, 2011). Some coaches vigorously resisted athlete protests, characterizing athletes as “uncommitted” and their protests as violating the spirit of the athletic scholarship, which they believed allowed them to run benign dictatorships. The NCAA responded defensively, concerning itself more “with refuting allegations and neutralizing dissent than with actually helping to improve conditions for black athletes” (Henderson, 2013, p. 126).

It is in that climate that college sport officials put forward proposals designed to exert greater authority over college athletes. The first of these was the “fraudulent misrepresentation rule,” passed in 1967, which narrowed the terms and conditions for athletic scholarships and allowed coaches to cancel an athletic scholarship at their discretion. As Sack (2008) reported, “The fraudulent misrepresentation rule allowed coaches to ‘fire’ athletes for insubordination and for not taking their athletic responsibilities seriously” (p. 70). Any athlete compelled by conscience to boycott practice as a way of expressing concern about his treatment was vulnerable to dismissal under this requirement. Indicative of the prevailing sentiment of the time, the fraudulent misrepresentation rule received overwhelming support from the NCAA membership, with 214 institutions voting in favor and only 13 opposed (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998).
Five years later, in 1972, the NCAA moved away from the four-year athletic scholarship to a one-year award, a move designed to further contain and quell athlete unrest which had reached an apex in 1968 with 130 publicized black athlete protests on predominantly white campuses and which had continued into the early 1970s. The new threat of being able to withhold renewal of the athletic scholarship gave coaches unparalleled power over athletes. Notably, the college sport community’s response to the athlete activism of the late 1960s and early 1970s was to ensure that athletes, black and white, would be silenced through the adoption of a one-year scholarship (Hartmann, 2008; Oriard, 2009; Staurowsky, 2014b; Wiggins, 1988). And even in 2015, as college sport authorities are again opening the door to a four-year athletic grant-in-aid, the award still hinges on job performance on the athletic field with the power to award or revoke left in the hands of employers. Further, athletes continue to be subject to effects of the fraudulent misrepresentation rule.

Disparate Impact on Racial Minorities

The overwhelming majority of players affected by this system are racial minorities. According to the NCAA Race and Gender Demographics Database, in 2013-2014, 46.5% of football players and 57.6% of men’s basketball players competing on NCAA Division I sponsored teams were black. When other racial minority groups are included (American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, and individuals identifying with two or more races), the figures go up even more, to 52.8% for football players and 61.7% for men’s basketball players.

When examining the college sport industry through a racial lens, “Black athletic talent is [revealed to be] a necessity to this enterprise’s survival” (Lanter & Hawkins, 2013). Of the 472,625 athletes the NCAA claims “go pro in something other than sports” (Irick, 2014), less than 1% – men’s basketball players – generates 90% of the NCAA’s revenue, the revenue that pays for not only the salaries of 700 NCAA employees, but that also contributes to an $18 billion economy supporting countless industries as diverse as higher education (college athletic departments); gaming; manufacturing (athletic shoe and apparel companies); television; and travel and tourism (bowl games and events). Of that 1% whose performances generate the bulk of the NCAA’s revenue, 60% are African-American male athletes (Lanter & Hawkins, 2013).

Similarly, top-tier college football teams that qualify for post-season bowl appearances and harvest the associated revenues, employ a significant percentage of Black male athletes. Two examples highlight the degree to which this occurs.

  • In the 2012 Allstate BCS National Championship game between LSU and Alabama, Black male athletes comprised 71% and 70% of the respective teams’ rosters (Hawkins, 2013).
  • During one of the 2014-15 semi-final College Football Playoff games, Florida State University (FSU) started 100% black players on both offense and defense, and the special teams included two more Black players (punt returner and kick returner) along with only two White players (punter and long snapper) and one Latino (kicker). African-Americans comprise only 9% of students at FSU (Hawkins’ analysis).

In 2010 within the 76 schools that comprised major conferences, male athletes of color were a majority in the football and men’s basketball labor force, but a minority in all other settings on predominantly White campuses (Harper, Williams, and Blackman, 2013; Smith & Hattery, 2015). While only 2.8 percent of full-time undergraduates at those schools were Black, the football and men’s basketball teams were 57.1% and 64.3% Black men, respectively. Tellingly, over 96% of these schools graduated football and men’s basketball players at rates lower than athletes in other sports, while 97.1% graduated those same athletes at rates lower than the general student body.

A racial dynamic is also present within big-time college-sport’s leadership structure. More often than not, players in these sports report to White head coaches and athletics administrators. NCAA Division I football coaching staffs are dominated by White coaches (89% of head coaches; 90.5% of offensive coordinators; 80% of defensive coordinators). In NCAA Division I men’s basketball, more than 76% of head coaches and 51.5% of assistant coaches are White. Similarly, nearly 80% of athletic directors and 90% of conference commissioners are White (NCAA Race & Gender Demographics, 2014).

During the 2013-2014 college football season, 80% of those who tuned in to watch NCAA-sanctioned post-season bowls were White males (Thompson, 2014). Of the 15.2 million television viewers who watched the 2013 NCAA Men’s Basketball Final Four, less than 20% were racial minorities (14-15% African-American, 4% Asian) (Bibel, 2013).

The racial context within which these players live their lives and attempt to navigate their current employment circumstances and future prospects is important (Agyemang, Singer, & DeLorme, 2010; Polite & Hawkins, 2011). Already under pressure to perform in order to retain athletic compensation and their place on teams, athletes lack consistent and sustained access to an external advocacy framework to help negotiate conflicts of interest that arise in their work lives. This lack of advocacy leaves these athletes vulnerable to dismissal for job underperformance, subject to quiet relocation through transfer, open to both subtle and overt forms of coercion, overly dependent on information given to them by those who govern their lives. Tellingly, because avenues of negotiation are foreclosed, these young men are systemically denied equitable opportunities to learn about alternatives and determine their rightful value (Huma & Staurowsky, 2013). Among the myriad ways these inequities manifest themselves is lower graduation rates among college football and men’s basketball players.

The most recently reported Federal graduation rates (2003-2007) showed 57% and 59% of football players at FBS and FCS institutions completed their degrees, while only 47% of NCAA Division I men’s basketball players did so. The NCAA Research Staff (2014) has conceded: “In the sports of men’s basketball and FBS football, the overall rates lag behind the rates of males in the student body” (Slide 5). Black college athletes experience social isolation and alienation as a result of systems in place to support them in achieving academic success on predominantly White campuses (Carter, Hart, and Steward, 2013).

With time demands that exceed those of other full-time employees, college football and men’s basketball players – the players who are the industry’s economic engine – have a more difficult time completing their college educations. Contrary to assertions that college athletes are integrated into the student body and are just like all other students, their collective designation as “student-athletes” creates a separate and unequal status in which they are denied both educational and employment access.

Scope & Impact of College Football and Men’s Basketball Exploitation

This analysis is not intended to ignore the array of issues that affect college athletes in sports other than football and men’s basketball and across all divisions. Rather, it reflects the important distinctions that college sport officials, themselves, have created by treating the football and men’s basketball sports and players differently than other sports and their participants. Speaking at the Street & Smith’s SportsBusinessJournal Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York City on December 11, 2014, NCAA executive vice president Mark Lewis emphasized that college football players are not the same as other athletes, that time demands experienced by athletes in football and men’s basketball have “grown considerably” and that athletes who have played in college and gone on to the professional ranks experience fewer time demands as pros. He went on to say that Division I football players are different from other athletes, very different, that they face “very different pressures that do not go away” (Staurowsky, personal notes; Wolverton tweet, 2014).

In his July 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, NCAA president Mark Emmert acknowledged that it is football and men’s basketball and the 3.5 percent of players affected by the business practices employed in those sports that “…prompt many questions relating to multi-year scholarships, transfer rules and behaviors, health care of student-athletes, and the costs of college sports” (p. 3). He went on to note:

No system is perfect, and the same holds true for intercollegiate sports. Over the history of the NCAA, we have witnessed some issues and challenges in every sport in every division. Yet the sports of football and men’s basketball at 123 well-known institutions in the larger conferences attract the most attention, make the most news and are subject to the most criticism (p. 3).

There is no doubt that the practices devised to control college sport labor infect the rest of the system. Other sports, such as women’s basketball (designated as the third revenue-producing sport in the NCAA philosophy statement), have also evidenced the same signs and symptoms of exploitation found among football and men’s basketball players. As Southall and Weiler (2014) argue, the exploitative forces at work intensify for those college athletes situated closer to the economic center while athletes throughout the system may be subjected to routine violations of their civil rights.


Contrary to concerns expressed by those who seek to maintain the existing business model of college sport, acknowledging that college football and men’s basketball players are employees will not have a detrimental impact on their educational interests. Denying employee status to these athletes serves the industry, not the athletes. The systemic limitations on their voice in the workplace prevent athletes from proposing salutary changes for the industry and, at the same time, impede their academic success.

We firmly believe there will be no genuine reform in the college sport industry until college football and basketball players are accorded status as employees with the attendant legal and civil rights that accrue. The foundational principle for college sport reform should be a commitment to remedying the injustice of denying college football and basketball players their rightful status as employees and addressing the systemic mechanisms that have been used to control them. To that end, we stand behind and with college football and men’s basketball players in their efforts to be treated humanely and with dignity.


Institutional affiliations of signatories are provided for identification purposes only.
Original List of Signatories At Time of CARE-FC Launch on March 12, 2015.
Additional signatories can be found on the CARE-FC website in the Signatories page.

Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Professor, Sport Management, Drexel University (co-founder)
Richard Southall, Ed.D., Associate Professor & Director, College Sport Research Institute, U. of South Carolina (co-founder)

Kevin Blackistone, Visiting Professor, Journalism, University of Maryland
Joseph Cooper, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Sport Management, University of Connecticut
Todd Crosset, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sport Management, University of Massachusetts
Algerian Hart, Ph.D., Assistant Professor & Graduate Coordinator, Sport Management, Western Illinois University
Angela J. Hattery, PhD., Professor & Director Women and Gender Studies, George Mason University
Billy Hawkins, Ph.D., Professor, Sport Management, University of Georgia
Richard Karcher, J.D., Assistant Professor, Sport Management, Eastern Michigan University
Jason Lanter, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Psychology, Kutztown State University
Joel Maxcy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sport Management, Drexel University
Amy Christian McCormick, J.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University College of Law
Robert A. McCormick, J.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University College of Law
Mark Nagel, Ph.D., Professor, Sport Management, University of South Carolina
Kadence Otto, Ph.D., Professor, Business Management & Law and Sport Management, Western Carolina University
Peter Schroeder, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sport Management, University of the Pacific
John Singer, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Sport Management, Texas A & M
Earl Smith, PhD. Professor of Sociology & Director, American Ethnic Studies, Emeritus, Wake Forest University
Robert Turner, Ph.D., Research Associate, African American Studies Department, University of Maryland


Agyemang, K., Singer, J.N., & DeLorme, J. (2010). An exploratory study of black male
college athletes’ perceptions on race and athlete activism. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 45(4), 419-435.

Associated Press. (2014, June 4). Ohio bill says college athletes aren’t employees. Retrieved from

Belzer, J., & Schwarz, A. (2012). National letter of indenture: Why college athletes are similar to indentured servants of Colonial times. Retrieved from /

Bibel, S. (2013, April 7). 2013 NCAA Final Four is highest-rated and most viewed in eight years. TV By the Numbers. Retrieved from

Byers, W. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Carter-Francique, A., Hart, A., & Steward, A. (2013). Black College Athletes’ Perceptions of Academic Success and the Role of Social Support. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6(2), 231-246.

Cooper, J., Cavil, J. K., & Cheeks, G. (2014). The state of intercollegiate athletics at Historically Black Colleges (HBCUs): Past, Present, & Persistence. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 307-332.

Demas, L. (2011). Integrating the gridiron: Black Civil Rights and American college football. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gurney, G., & Southall, R. (2012, August 9). College sports’ bait and switch. Retrieved from

Emmert, M. (2014, July 9). Written testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Washington, D.C.: United States Senate. Retrieved from

Harper, S. R., Williams, C. D., & Blackman, H. W. (2013). Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college sport. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.

Hartmann, D. (2008). Race, culture, and the revolt of the black athlete. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hawkins, B. J. (2010a). Economic recession, college athletics, and issues of diversity and inclusion: When White America sneezes, Black America catches pneumonia. Journal of Intercollegiate Athletics, 3(1), 96-100.

Hawkins, B. (2010b). The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and predominantly white institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heinlein, G. (2014, December 17). Mich. Senate passes bill banning college athlete unions. The Detroit News. Retrieved from

Henderson, S. (2013). Sidelined: How American sports challenged the Black freedom struggle.
Huma, R., & Staurowsky, E. J. (2013). The $6 billion heist: Robbing college athletes under the guise of amateurism. Riverside, CA: National College Players Association.

Irick, E. (2014, October). NCAA student-athlete sponsorship and participation report: 1981-1982-2013-2014. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from

Johnson, R. (2010). Submarining due process: How the NCAA uses its restitution rule to deprive college athletes of their right of access to the courts….Until Oliver v. NCAA. Florida Coastal Law Review, 461-602.

Karcher, R. (2012). Broadcast rights, unjust enrichment, and the student-athlete. Cardozo Law Review 34 (1), 107-170. Retrieved from

Karcher, R. (2014). The battle outside of the courtroom: Principles of “amateurism” vs. principles of supply and demand. Mississippi Sports Law Review 3 (1), 47-76.

Lanter, R. J. & Hawkins, B. J. (2013). The economic model of intercollegiate athletics and its effects on the college athlete educational experience. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 86-85.

McCormick, A. C., & McCormick, R. A. (2008). The emperor’s new clothes: Lifting the NCAA’s veil of amateurism. San Diego Law Review 45, 495-546. Retrieved from

McCormick, R.A., & McCormick, A. C. (2006). The myth of the student-athlete: The college athlete as employee. Washington Law Review 81, 71-157. Retrieved from

N.A. (2014). NCAA race and gender demographic database. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from

NCAA Research Staff. (2014, October). Trends in graduation-success rates and federal graduation rates at NCAA Division I institutions. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from

Oriard, M. (2009). Bowled over: Big time college football from the Sixties to the BCS era. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Osborn, S. (2014, April 11). NCAA Men’s Final Four brings record number of fans to North Texas, leaves lasting impact. Press release. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from

Otto, K., & Otto, H. (2013). Clarifying amateurism: A logical approach to resolving the exploitation of college athletes dilemma. Sports, Ethics, and Philosophy 7 (2), 259-270.

Paule, A., & Flett, R. (2011). What’s the rush? Early recruiting in Division I athletics. Applied Research in Coaching & Athletics Annual 26, 55-79.

Polite, F. G. & Hawkins, B. J. (Eds.) (2011). Sport, race, activism, and social change: The impact of Dr. Harry Edwards’ scholarship and service. San Diego, CA: Cognella Academic Publishers.

Rosado Marzan, C. F. (2014). Labor law professors’ brief amici curiae (supporting the College Athlete Players Association). Retrieved from

Ross, S.F., Karcher, R. & Kensinger, B. (2014). Judicial Review of NCAA Eligibility Decisions: Evaluation of the Restitution Rule and a Call for Arbitration. Journal of College and University Law 40 (1), 79-113. Retrieved from

Sack, A., & Staurowsky, E. J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA amateur myth. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

Sack, A. (2008). Counterfeit amateurs: An athlete’s journey through the sixties to the age of academic capitalism. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Smith, E. (2014). Race, sport, and the American dream. 3rd edition. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Smith, E. & Hattery, A. J. (2011). “College Sports: It’s All About The Money.” Pp. 233-262 in Steven Best and Anthony Nocella (ed), The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination NY: Lexington Books.

Smith, E., & Hattery, A. J. (2015). “The Unintended Consequences of Purposive Social Change: Conference Realignment and the Demise of the Academic Mission in US Higher Education.” Pp. xx-xx in Eddie Comeaux (ed), Introduction to Intercollegiate Athletics in American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Solomon, J. (2014, December 12). Plaintiffs want judge removed in John Rock v. NCAA scholarship case. Retrieved from

Southall, R., Eckard, W., Nagel, M., Keith, E., & Blake, C. (2014, March 12). 2013-2014 Adjusted Graduation Gap Report: NCAA Division I basketball. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Retrieved from

Southall, R., & Staurowsky, E. J. (2013). Cheering on the collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA’s redefinition of amateurism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 37 (4), 403-429.

Southall, R., & Weiler, J. (2014). NCAA Division-I athletic departments: 21st century athletic company towns. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 7, 161-1896. Retrieved from

Staurowsky, E. J. (in press). An analysis of Northwestern University’s denial of rights to and recognition of college football labor. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport.

Staurowsky, E. J. (2004). Piercing the veil of amateurism: Commercialisation, corruption, and US college sports. In Slack, T. (Ed.), The commercialization of sport, pp. 143-169. NY, NY: Routledge.

Staurowsky, E. J. (2014a, February 1). The significance of college athletes signing union cards. Huffington Post. Retrieved from

Staurowsky, E. J. (2014b). College athletes in the age of the super conference: The case of the All Players United campaign. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 7, 11-34.

Staurowsky, E. J., & Sack. A. L. (2005). Reconsidering the use of the term student-athlete in academic research. Journal of Sport Management 19 (2), 205-214.

Thompson, D. (2014, February 10). Which sports have the whitest/richest/oldest fans? The Atlantic. Retrieved from

Underwood, J. (1969, August 25). The desperate coach. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from

Wiggins, D. (1988). ‘The future of college athletics is at stake’: Black athletes and racial turmoil on three predominantly white campuses: 1968-1972. Journal of Sport History 15, 304-333.

Lawsuits Cited

Arrington v. NCAA (2011). Retrieved from

College Athlete Players Association v. Northwestern University (2014). Retrieved from

Doughty v. NCAA (2013). Retrieved from

Jenkins v. NCAA (2014). Retrieved from

Marshall v. ESPN et al. (2014). Retrieved from

Obannon v. NCAA (2014). Retrieved from!Invesitgations-and-enterprise/OBANNONRULING.pdf

Oliver v. NCAA (2009). Retrieved from

Owens v. NCAA (2011). Retrieved from
(later consolidated with Arrington)
Rock v. NCAA (2013). Retrieved from

Sackos v. NCAA (2014). Retrieved from

Sheely v. NCAA (2013). Retrieved from

University of Denver v. Nemeth (1953). Retrieved from

Van Horn v. Industrial Accident Commission (1963). Retrieved from