Johnson Lawyers Argue that NCAA’s Use of “Amateurs” Is Meaningless, Seek Discovery

The NCAA can call college athletes as “amateurs,” but that designation shouldn’t prevent schools from recognizing those athletes as employees, a new court filing in Johnson v. NCAA insists.

On Thursday, attorneys for former Villanova football player Ralph “Trey” Johnson and other current and former athletes filed a 55-page brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Sportico has obtained the brief.

More from Sportico.com

The players asked the court to affirm a favorable ruling by a federal district judge last year and to remand the case for pretrial discovery. Discovery could lead to the disclosure of sensitive NCAA documents, conference emails and testimony by college officials. Evidence and testimony “discovered” could indicate that college athletes are functioning as employees but not being paid to work, and that college sports leaders view athletes as drivers of revenue more so than students.

Last year, Judge John Padova denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss Johnson, which argues that college athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As FLSA employees, college athletes would be paid like their work-study classmates, some of whom earn wages by manning ticket counters and concession stands at games where the players aren’t paid. The Southeastern Conference and a group of 13 education associations recently filed an amicus brief warning that recognition of college athletes as employees would prove cost-prohibitive for many schools.

Padova reasoned that the players sufficiently stated a claim under the FLSA and analogous state laws. As the players see it, Padova didn’t declare that the NCAA and colleges are players’ employers—“that is a decision for a later day,” their brief cautions. Padova instead held that the NCAA and colleges “are not above the law and must engage in discovery.”

Story continues

The players’ brief blasts the NCAA for what they describe as asking for deferential legal treatment only a year after the U.S. Supreme Court flatly rejected that approach. In NCAA v. Alston, the players contend, the NCAA and member schools were treated “just like every other business” and thus “subject to ordinary legal scrutiny.” To that end, the Supreme Court rebuked what some have described as the NCAA’s circular reference to college athletes as amateurs—i.e, college athletes are amateurs because the NCAA calls them amateurs.

The brief argues that the “logical conclusion” of…