ollege sports and amateurism have long been intertwined, with the NCAA championing the term “student-athlete” to reinforce the notion that college athletes should not be paid employees. However, this notion has come under fire because college athletes had to risk losing eligibility to receive compensation while helping schools profit. In response, athletes have challenged the system using antitrust, intellectual property, and labor & employment laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston dealt a decisive blow to the NCAA’s financial restrictions, declaring that there is no “amateurism exception” to antitrust law. This landmark ruling cleared the way for name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws, allowing athletes to finally profit from their personal brands. But the battle is far from over. Three pivotal cases—Dartmouth College basketball’s unionization petition, the Johnson v. NCAA ruling, and a transformative $2.8 billion settlement—are set to redefine college athletics. These cases could reshape athletes as employees and alter the future of college sports forever.

This Note traces the evolution of amateurism in college sports, from its early days to the present, and highlights the legal challenges that continue to reshape the system. It also explores the potential impact of the Johnson case on athletes’ employment status and examines how the NCAA might leverage the non-statutory labor exemption to safeguard antitrust protections in the event of college athlete employment.