Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2024 · Corporations

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsFLSAEmployment statusCollege athleticsAmateurismemployeecollege athletesNCAA

Facts

The plaintiffs are athletes at NCAA Division I schools who allege that the NCAA and member schools profit from their athletic efforts through broadcasting and related athletic revenues while NCAA bylaws prohibit schools from paying wages and prohibit athletes from accepting them. The bylaws also authorize sanctions, including athlete suspension or termination, staff suspension, and team disqualification, for violations. Plaintiffs allege they were subject to extensive training and performance requirements that interfered with academics, including required scheduling around athletic commitments that limited course options. Defendants argued that athletes are amateurs rather than employees and that participation provides noncash benefits such as discipline, leadership, strategic thinking, and teamwork skills.

Issue

Whether NCAA Division I college athletes are categorically barred, by virtue of their amateur status, from ever asserting employee status under the FLSA. Relatedly, what legal framework should courts use to determine whether college athletes may qualify as employees under the FLSA.

Rule

College athletes are not barred as a matter of law from asserting FLSA claims based on amateurism. A college athlete may be an employee under the FLSA when the athlete (a) performs services for another party, (b) necessarily and primarily for that party's benefit, (c) under that party's control or right of control, and (d) in return for express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits; the ultimate inquiry is the economic reality of the whole relationship.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview College, a Division I school in Ohio, requires sprinter Maya Torres to attend mandatory year-round training, media events, and team study halls, and threatens suspension if she misses them. The school sells broadcast packages featuring its track program and provides Maya with tuition, housing, and meal benefits tied to remaining on the team. Lakeview moves to dismiss Maya's FLSA claim solely because she is an amateur college athlete.

How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss?

Explanation. The governing rule is that college athletes are not barred as a matter of law from bringing FLSA claims simply because they are labeled amateurs. The proper inquiry is the economic reality of the relationship, asking whether the athlete performs services for another, primarily for that party's benefit, under its control or right of control, in return for express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits. Maya's allegations are enough to avoid dismissal on an amateurism-only theory.