Business Case Study: Analyzing the Monopolistic Power of the NCAA

This case study delves into the monopolistic power of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), examining its historical foundation, organizational structure, and impact on college sports. It explores the challenges faced by the NCAA, including antitrust claims, the rise of commercialization, and the potential for super-conferences. The analysis identifies the causes of these problems, such as the NCAA's shift towards a multibillion-dollar enterprise and the limitations on student-athlete compensation. Proposed solutions include leveraging consumer disposable income, capitalizing on international market opportunities, and adapting to changing economic conditions. The case study highlights the importance of the NCAA's evolving design and the potential impact of antitrust enforcement on the sports industry. It argues that the university sports market is self-regulating and that the NCAA should adapt its rules to market forces. The analysis concludes by emphasizing the need for the NCAA to navigate these challenges while balancing its stated objectives with the interests of its member institutions and student-athletes.

1
Topic: Analysis of the case study
Student name:
Student ID:
Course:
Date:

2
THE MONOPOLISTIC POWER OF THE NCAA
Discussion of the situation:
This case inspects the connection between the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) and its constituent organizations, with a specific accentuation on how power arises and
is kept up with at the legitimate level. Through a nearby assessment of the NCAA's authentic
foundation, the case advises the surprising account of the association's climb to power and its
capacity to deal with all college games in the United States. Given the developing
commercialization of university sports, the NCAA's evident cartel-like design has raised doubt
about the non-benefit association's objective and major beliefs, just as regardless of whether the
NCAA really focuses on the prosperity of its part association. Confronted with antitrust claims,
shocks, the approaching danger of the development of super-get-togethers, and a huge number of
different troubles, the NCAA ought to tread carefully.
The NCAA was founded in 1906 to assure understudy competition in schools. Since its
inception, the NCAA has grown to promote 87 university public titles over 21 different games.
The NCAA planned to enact a slew of regulations in order to keep rules and standards under
check. Standing regulations cover laws of play, public titles, understudy competitor qualification,
and authorizations, as well as other administrative difficulties (Anderson, 2013). Later on, the
NCAA enacted local statutes that more clearly defined crudeness and its role in school games.
Understudy contestants are not authorized to earn money through marketing of their games. The
concept of discomfort and the fundamental beliefs of the NCAA are linked by the prospect that
inferior competitors cannot profit from their games.

3
Causes of the problems in the case and major problems:
The NCAA did not start financing women's sports until the autumn of 1982. The AIAW
subsequently began to experience disasters in notoriety, for example, advances, advertisements,
and enrollments. The justification behind the activity was on the grounds that AIAW
documented a claim against the NCAA, charging that the NCAA abused the primary, second,
and third arrangements of the Sherman Act. The court's demeanor is that the court demands the
locale's court association for giving a drawn-out mandate separate from the NCAA from
reenacting compensation cutoff focuses, for example, those contained in the REC Rule-reliant
upon the solicitation yielding the outline judgment to the annoyed gatherings on the issue of
antitrust commitment. Pundits demonstrated that the NCAA had strayed from the organization's
stated objective and fought for a realignment of the NCAA's core instructional attributes.
This was largely due to the NCAA's progressive transformation into a multibillion-dollar
administrative enterprise, with mentors' pay, TV contracts, and media involvement rivalling that
of several expert associations. Regardless, despite the NCAA's expanding corporate presence and
monopolistic structure, the organization's primary idea and fundamental values continued to
sustain its essential underpinnings. Regardless of what observers perceived as the NCAA's
cartel-like role in managing revenue-generating economic activities, rearranging was frequently
directly related with its stated aim.
Competitors may easily replicate the NCAA Collegiate strategy — According to Carl
Anderson and Francine Schlosser, the NCAA Collegiate strategy may be efficiently replicated by
business players. - Limited exposure to the global market – Despite its importance in the local
market, NCAA Collegiate has minimal exposure to the global market. According to Carl

4
Anderson and Francine Schlosser, NCAA Collegiate need global capability to access developing
markets.
Set of solutions and analysis of possible solutions:
Following are the solutions of problems:
Increase in Consumer Disposable Income – NCAA Collegiate can use the growing
discretionary cashflow to create another plan of action in which clients begin paying logically for
using its things. According to Francine Schlosser of The Monopolistic Power of the NCAA
contextual study, NCAA Collegiate can leverage this tendency to expand its influence in
neighboring regions.
Rewarding Opportunities in International Markets – Globalization has resulted in new
opportunities in the global market. NCAA Collegiate is in an excellent position to capitalize on
these opportunities and grow its share of the entire business.
NCAA Collegiate is one of the most productive companies in its industry, thanks to
smoothed-out procedures and proficient activity across the board. The board's beneficial
implementation and productive actions deserve recognition for the presentation. Experienced and
effective management team – The NCAA Collegiate supervisory team has been a success over
the previous decade by successfully anticipating company trends.
Importance of case study to the sport industry:
As the NCAA's definitive design ready for progress, the power the NCAA had employed
over its constituent foundations started to diminish. Gone are the days when the NCAA
controlled the transmission TV privileges of secondary school football and, accordingly, got the

5
proceeded with monetary turn of events and power of the country's most renowned games drives.
The NCAA's overabundance power depended on its multibillion-dollar TV contract for the
Division I NCAA men's ball title. Emmert saw that without this, the association would be
decreased to an overseeing body endeavoring to complete its principles yet without the monetary
assets to set them in motion.
Ordinary monetary analysis of NCAA decisions that we have tried also suggests that
university athletics would essentially be better if the NCAA were denied the ability to restrict the
introduction of competitors. Given the lack of legitimate barriers to entry into the athletic
affiliation market, and assuming that competitors' wages were truly stifled (or as horribly stifled
as pundits claim), elective games affiliations would frame or grow, and the NCAA would be
unable to maintain its assumed monopsony market position. The incentive for schools and
universities to abandon the NCAA would be overwhelming.
The interpretation of NCAA regulations does not imply that competitors should not be
compensated more than they are today. Simply said, economic conditions change, and NCAA
executives should be prepared to adapt to such changes on a regular basis. Without section
boundaries, we may expect the NCAA to adjust its principles of play, enrollment, and competitor
retention in a ruthless manner, as it has done in the past. Our key point is that contrary to the
defenders of the monopsony postulation, the university sports market is dependent on oneself in
terms of resolving market forces. We have reason to believe that the proposed expansion of
antitrust enforcement to the NCAA runs or planned reforms in sports legislation unequivocally
or unambiguously recommended by proponents of the cartel hypothesis would be futile and
destructive.

6
References
Anderson, C. (2013). The Monopolistic Power of the NCAA. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 18027.