doll, please disclose if you work for the U. I'll answer the question: See Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Of which, the most often cited case is The Chicago Board of Trade v United States, which defined restraint of trade as, "Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. " So said the US Supremes. The NCAA athletes conduct manual is 400 pages long. Any miniscule infraction can cause a contract for scholarship to be null and void. Before the NCAA, players determined who they played and controlled gate proceeds. The colleges took over and exchanged the gate for scholarships. Then, in the 1950's, the handbook was instituted to control the scholarships. And, the term student athlete was created to keep the athletes from being legally recognized as employees for workers compensation for injuries. Now, with the advent of the regional director of the NLRB ruling that Northwestern players were legally employees, they fit into a protected status under the law in general to all things related to trade and employment. Also, with athletes in suit against EA sports and the NCAA for using their image after graduation or exit from school, their status as individuals for claims became more powerful because one region now recognizes athletes under scholarship as being employees. This is the same region that the Indiana Supreme court has already recognized athletes as being qualified employees under Indiana and US Law. There is no doubt that under the tests of Chicago board, that certain proofs will be made showing athletes losing under the current scholarship and control arrangement. The documentary, Schooled showed how both sides are approaching the problem. I find for the athlete as being restrained from adding any more benefit for the scholarship contract since all schools agreed prior to the grants of scholarship to limit those awards by NCAA formulas. Feel free to disagree with this view, but they are the germane facts of the cases now before the courts.
