The recent dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Ivy League’s ban on athletic scholarships has brought renewed attention to the longstanding policies of some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. The case, filed by former Ivy League athletes at Brown, Tamenang Choh, and Grace Kirk, accused all Ivy League schools and the Ivy League Council of Presidents of violating antitrust laws by collaborating not to pay student-athletes and restrict athletic scholarships and compensation.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson, an Ivy League graduate and presiding in Connecticut, dismissed the suit—a win for the defendants. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, arguing the Ivy League’s need-based financial aid policy wasn’t proven to violate antitrust laws. The Ivy League doesn’t control a unique or anti-competitive market since other elite schools like Stanford and Notre Dame also offer top-tier education with or without athletic scholarships. Additionally, the judge saw the policy as having “altruistic motives,” benefiting students rather than maximizing profits. Lastly, Tamenang Choh’s claims were dismissed as they were filed too late, exceeding the statute of limitations.
[RELATED: Financial Armageddon is Coming for College Sports]
This decision underscores the Ivy League’s steadfast commitment to its long-standing tradition of prioritizing academics and equity over the commercialization of collegiate athletics. However, it also highlights a growing debate about fairness and opportunity in the era of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights.
NIL laws allow student-athletes to profit from their personal brand through third-party deals like sponsorships, endorsements, and social media activities. However, these laws do not mandate schools to pay athletes directly. Instead, they permit athletes to earn compensation independently. Ivy League schools comply with NIL laws but maintain their unique stance by not organizing NIL collectives or facilitating deals. This hands-off approach leaves athletes to navigate NIL opportunities on their own.
Since 1954, the Ivy League has adhered to a self-imposed rule prohibiting athletic scholarships. Instead, they focus on need-based financial aid, aligning with their academic mission. NIL laws, which govern external earnings, do not override this policy. Ivy League schools, emphasizing academics over-commercialization, prioritize educational pursuits over creating NIL infrastructure. By adhering to NCAA rules and maintaining their policies, the Ivy League remains compliant while distinguishing itself from other Division I programs.
The lawsuit specifically alleged that the Ivy League’s policies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. According to the plaintiffs, the Ivy League’s collective prohibition of athletic scholarships constituted an anti-competitive practice that unfairly restricted athlete opportunities. However, Judge Thompson dismissed the case because the plaintiffs failed to define a relevant market in which competition was harmed, a central requirement in antitrust cases.
While the ruling reaffirms the Ivy League’s distinct model, it also raises questions about equity and the economic realities faced by student-athletes. For many athletes, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds, the ban on athletic scholarships can present a significant barrier. Need-based aid may not fully address the financial demands of attending Ivy League institutions, putting these athletes at a competitive and financial disadvantage compared to their peers at other Division I schools.
[RELATED: How to Fix the Constitution of Soccer]
The implications of this case extend beyond sports, shedding light on broader issues in higher education. Some see policies like the Ivy League’s scholarship ban as perpetuating inequalities and limiting access for talented athletes from less privileged backgrounds. They also prompt deeper reflection on how elite institutions reconcile their historical traditions with today’s student-athletes’ financial and personal realities.
As the NCAA evolves and student-athletes gain more power through NIL deals and other compensation mechanisms, pressure on the Ivy League to adapt will likely grow. Advocacy for reform in collegiate athletics continues to intensify. While this ruling is a short-term victory for Ivy League schools, it is unlikely to quell the broader conversation about fairness and student-athletes’ rights.
The case of Choh and Kirk v. Ivy League highlights an ongoing challenge in collegiate sports: how to balance the academic mission of universities with the financial and professional realities of student-athletes. For now, Ivy League schools remain steadfast in their commitment to tradition, but the scrutiny surrounding these policies suggests the debate is far from over.
The ruling serves as a reminder that while institutions may have the legal standing to maintain their policies, they must also address the moral and practical questions raised by a new generation of student-athletes navigating the evolving landscape of collegiate sports.
Follow Jessi Wynn on X.
Image of Pizzitola Memorial Sports Center interior — Wikimedia Commons
“Need-based aid may not fully address the financial demands of attending Ivy League institutions, putting these athletes at a competitive and financial disadvantage compared to their peers at other Division I schools.”
How?!?
I am by no means an expert on NCAA regs, but as I understand it, the NCAA restricts athletic scholarships to covering only what need based scholarships cover, e.g. you can’t buy the kid a car (people have tried). Now I am not saying that colleges don’t play bookkeeping games, but at least in theory, the only difference between an athletic (non need) scholarship and an need-based scholarship is that the athlete has the family resources not to “need” the scholarship.
Hence the athletes at a financial disadvantage will qualify (and receive) a need-based scholarship, while their peers, whose parents have six figure incomes, won’t. What — exactly — will the NCAA allow to be included in an athletic scholarship that isn’t included in a full need-based one?
Now the larger question is the Ivy League’s ability to regulate its curriculum, i.e. to determine if sports will be played on campus and under what conditions they will be played. And those who think they can get a better deal elsewhere are free to go elsewhere — exchanging the Ivy League degree for a Division I degree, the pride of saying that one had an athletic scholarship, and what?
Other than the pride of saying that you got one, I still don’t see what is in an athletic scholarship that isn’t in a *full* need-based scholarship. And the real question is why the truly talented athlete can’t go pro out of high school, as baseball players can and do.