Antitrust Anachronism: The Interracial Wealth Transfer in Collegiate Athletics Under the Consumer Welfare Standard

Q2 Social Sciences
Ted Tatos, Hal J. Singer
{"title":"Antitrust Anachronism: The Interracial Wealth Transfer in Collegiate Athletics Under the Consumer Welfare Standard","authors":"Ted Tatos, Hal J. Singer","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211029481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under an illusory nexus to education, intercollegiate athletics in the United States represents a multibillion-dollar enterprise that extracts economic rents from the majority Black athlete labor to the benefit of overwhelmingly White constituencies. Under the aegis of “amateurism,” member universities of the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) collude to fix maximum athlete compensation at cost-of-attendance and strip athletes of the economic rights over their own name, image, or likeness. While this anticompetitive restraint encumbers all athletes competing under the NCAA umbrella, it imposes a disparate impact on Black and other minority athletes who represent a majority of the labor in the largest revenue sports: football and basketball. Although White coaches are the most visible beneficiaries of this anticompetitive restraint, the scope of amateurism’s interracial distributional effects has largely remained uncovered. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature. Leveraging data from multiple sources, including institutional financial reports and the NCAA Demographics Database from 2007–2020, this article quantifies the NCAA’s wealth transfer away from primarily Black athlete labor to institutions and overwhelmingly White constituencies. Under the NCAA’ restraint, we estimate that Black football and men’s and women’s basketball athletes at the Division I Power 5 Conference level have lost approximately $17 billion to $21 billion in compensation from 2005 to 2019 or roughly $1.2–$1.4 billion per year. The antitrust status quo’s failure to enjoin the NCAA’s collusive wage-fixing restraint, which causes such obvious antitrust injury and harm to athlete labor, underscores the fundamental shortcomings of using the consumer-welfare standard as the exclusive lodestar to investigate and enjoin anticompetitive conduct; it also exposes the divergence between “amateurism” as described in Board of Regents and the modern-day realities of college athletics.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"66 1","pages":"396 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211029481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under an illusory nexus to education, intercollegiate athletics in the United States represents a multibillion-dollar enterprise that extracts economic rents from the majority Black athlete labor to the benefit of overwhelmingly White constituencies. Under the aegis of “amateurism,” member universities of the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) collude to fix maximum athlete compensation at cost-of-attendance and strip athletes of the economic rights over their own name, image, or likeness. While this anticompetitive restraint encumbers all athletes competing under the NCAA umbrella, it imposes a disparate impact on Black and other minority athletes who represent a majority of the labor in the largest revenue sports: football and basketball. Although White coaches are the most visible beneficiaries of this anticompetitive restraint, the scope of amateurism’s interracial distributional effects has largely remained uncovered. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature. Leveraging data from multiple sources, including institutional financial reports and the NCAA Demographics Database from 2007–2020, this article quantifies the NCAA’s wealth transfer away from primarily Black athlete labor to institutions and overwhelmingly White constituencies. Under the NCAA’ restraint, we estimate that Black football and men’s and women’s basketball athletes at the Division I Power 5 Conference level have lost approximately $17 billion to $21 billion in compensation from 2005 to 2019 or roughly $1.2–$1.4 billion per year. The antitrust status quo’s failure to enjoin the NCAA’s collusive wage-fixing restraint, which causes such obvious antitrust injury and harm to athlete labor, underscores the fundamental shortcomings of using the consumer-welfare standard as the exclusive lodestar to investigate and enjoin anticompetitive conduct; it also exposes the divergence between “amateurism” as described in Board of Regents and the modern-day realities of college athletics.
反垄断的时代错误:消费者福利标准下大学体育运动中的种族间财富转移
在与教育的虚幻联系下,美国的校际田径运动代表着一个价值数十亿美元的企业,它从大多数黑人运动员的劳动力中提取经济租金,以造福绝大多数白人选民。在“业余主义”的庇护下,美国国家大学体育协会(NCAA)的成员大学串通,以出勤为代价确定运动员的最高补偿,并剥夺运动员对自己姓名、形象或肖像的经济权利。虽然这种反竞争限制阻碍了所有在NCAA保护伞下参赛的运动员,但它对黑人和其他少数族裔运动员产生了不同的影响,他们在收入最大的体育项目中占了大部分劳动力:足球和篮球。尽管白人教练是这种反竞争限制最明显的受益者,但业余主义的跨种族分配效应的范围在很大程度上仍未被发现。本文试图填补文献中的这一空白。本文利用来自多个来源的数据,包括2007-2020年的机构财务报告和NCAA人口数据库,量化了NCAA的财富从主要是黑人运动员的劳动力转移到机构和绝大多数白人选民。在NCAA的限制下,我们估计,从2005年到2019年,黑人足球以及第一赛区五强赛级别的男子和女子篮球运动员的赔偿损失约为170亿至210亿美元,即每年约为12亿至14亿美元。反垄断现状未能禁止NCAA的串通工资限制,这对运动员的劳动造成了如此明显的反垄断伤害和伤害,突显了将消费者福利标准作为调查和禁止反竞争行为的唯一指路明灯的根本缺陷;它还暴露了董事会所描述的“业余主义”与现代大学体育现实之间的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信