No, the first court was right. Bloom wasn't likely to win his case. The NCAA's rules are very clear that college athletes can't get paid for endorsements, and there's a good reason for that rule: keeping college sports amateur. The court agreed that Bloom was allowed to sue the NCAA. But when it looked at the NCAA's rulebook, it said the ban on getting paid for ads applies to everyone, no matter what sport the ad is for. The court said this rule isn't unfair because it helps the NCAA keep a clear line between unpaid college sports and paid professional sports. If they made an exception for Bloom, it might create a 'slippery slope' where other athletes and schools could cheat the system.

No, the NCAA rules against college athletes making endorsement and media money count for Bloom, even though the money was from skiing, not football. The rules are clear that college athletes can't make any endorsement or media money, no matter the details. The rules make sense to keep a clear line between college and professional sports. As someone benefitting from the deal between the NCAA and colleges, Bloom has to follow their rules like everyone else. The NCAA wasn't being unfair in applying the rules to Bloom, because the rules help stop college athletes from being used too much for money-making and keep college sports about school, not money. So Bloom didn't show he had a good chance of proving the NCAA broke their duty to be fair or made rules that didn't make sense.

No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the student-athlete failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits. The NCAA's bylaws unambiguously prohibit all student-athletes from engaging in paid endorsements, and this rule is rationally related to the NCAA's legitimate goal of preserving amateurism in college sports. The court first determined that Bloom had standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the NCAA and its member institutions. However, in analyzing the contract, the court found the NCAA's bylaws are clear and not sport-specific. While one bylaw permits a professional in one sport to be an amateur in another, other bylaws, like 12.5.2.1, explicitly prohibit any student-athlete from accepting remuneration for endorsements. The court held that these specific prohibitions control. Furthermore, applying this rule to Bloom was not arbitrary or capricious because it is rationally related to the NCAA's mission to maintain a 'clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.' Allowing sport-specific endorsements could create a slippery slope, undermining the principle of amateurism and making it difficult to prevent commercial exploitation of student-athletes.

No, the NCAA bylaws prohibiting student-athletes from receiving endorsement income and engaging in paid media appearances apply regardless of when the opportunities arose or whether they relate to the student-athlete's sport, because the bylaws serve the legitimate purpose of maintaining a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports. As a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the NCAA and member institutions like CU, Bloom has no greater rights than the contracting parties and is subject to the bylaws. The bylaws are unambiguous in their blanket prohibitions on endorsement and media income. Even if ambiguous, the NCAA and member institutions' consistent interpretation applying the bylaws regardless of sport or timing would prevail. The NCAA's application of the bylaws to Bloom was not arbitrary and capricious, as the prohibitions serve the rational purpose of preventing the commercial exploitation of student-athletes and maintaining the amateur character of college sports. Bloom thus failed to show a reasonable probability of success on his claims the bylaws breach the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing or are arbitrary and capricious.

Bloom v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot