New antitrust suit against NCAA seeks damages for P5 athletes who received partial scholarships
The NCAA has been hoping the historic settlement in the House case would end the seemingly endless parade of lawsuits filed against the association in recent years.
But months before the landmark House case is even certified – which is not a foregone conclusion – another antitrust class-action complaint was filed against the NCAA: Cornelio v. NCAA.
In short, the suit seeks damages for Power Five conference athletes who received partial scholarships and to enjoin NCAA rules that limit the number of scholarships by sport, said Mit Winter, a college sports attorney with Kennyhertz Perry.
“Although scholarship limits are slated to go away as part of the House settlement, that doesn’t insulate the NCAA for past damages that may have been caused by the scholarship limits,” Winter said.
Filed in Colorado District Court, the plaintiff is former TCU baseball player Riley Cornelio. The suit states that Cornelio “worked” as a college baseball player from 2019 to 2022.
The plaintiff’s lead attorneys from the Korein Tillery law firm are the same attorneys who also represent plaintiffs in another ongoing lawsuit confronting the NCAA: Fontenot.
What is at heart of Cornelio v. NCAA?
The suit paints a picture of Tennessee winning its first college baseball championship, detailing that the majority of the celebrating players were on partial scholarship.
NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4 limits NCAA schools to only offering 11.7 baseball scholarships, the suit notes, “but that’s not nearly enough players for a college baseball team.” The scholarships are spread among at least 27 players, the complaint states, putting (on average) each player on a 43% scholarship.
The suit claims the 11.7 scholarship bylaw is an artificial cap on scholarship money that schools can provide.
“Defendant and its members operate as a cartel, and the capping of scholarship money at artificially low levels in these sports results in wage fixing amongst horizontal competitors in a market for services,” the complaint states. “The anticompetitive effects are as clear as with any other wage fix, and it is an unlawful restraint under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
Top 10
- 1Hot
Kirk Herbstreit
Shot fired at First Take, Stephen A. Smith
- 2New
Ohio State vs. Oregon odds
Early Rose Bowl line released
- 3
Updated CFP Bracket
Quarterfinal matchups set
- 4Trending
Paul Finebaum
ESPN host rips CFP amid blowout
- 5
Klatt blasts Kiffin
Ole Miss HC called out for tweets
Get the On3 Top 10 to your inbox every morning
By clicking "Subscribe to Newsletter", I agree to On3's Privacy Notice, Terms, and use of my personal information described therein.
As part of the House settlement, scholarship increases are coming across sports, as are new roster limits, if the agreement is certified in early 2025. The proposed roster limit for baseball would be 34.
“Even if the rule [NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4] is finally repealed, there will still be a need to make whole the athletes who suffered,” the suit states. “Years of antitrust harm cannot be undone simply with the striking of a rule that already damaged thousands of athletes …
“This suit seeks to ensure that the NCAA and its members follow through on the promise of eliminating this rule, and to recover the damages caused by their collusive and illegal practices.”
Complaint seeks class-action status
Cornelio brings the complaint as a class action on behalf of the following parties:
“All persons who received partial scholarships at an NCAA Division I school that is or was a member of one of the Power Five Conferences during the relevant time period, or at the University of Notre Dame, in the sports delineated in NCAA Bylaws 15.5.3, 15.5.4 (baseball) and 15.5.7 (hockey) from the beginning of the statute of limitations period, as determined by the Court, through judgment in this matter.”
The suit is seeking remedies that include treble damages awarded under the Sherman Act to Cornelio and class members.
Also of note, the suit makes numerous references to college sports equating to work, language that wades into the hot-button employee model debate that is simmering throughout college sports.
“Being a college athlete at the Division I level is akin to having a full-time job,” the suit states. “The athletes often work six days a week with long hours of travel when going to away games, and frequently work over 40 hours per week. Even during the ‘off-season,’ the work is substantial. The schools control much of their daily activities from the moment the athletes wake up.”