After all, Calhoun v. CIF argues, student-athletes generate income for schools through the image marketing of uniforms, logos, and other identifying insignia. Why can’t the athletes benefit?
In 2021, the Supreme Court held that restrictions on colleges’ education-related payments to athletes violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. In June 2025, this theory resulted in a $2.8 billion settlement and seemingly cleared the way for colleges to pay athletes for the use of their NIL.
High school sports is a booming industry in California. Is paying high school athletes the next frontier?
Athletes versus rule-makers
Dominik Calhoun competed for El Cerrito High School’s football team for the 2021 and 2022 seasons, and for Pittsburg High School’s track and field and football teams for the 2023 and 2024 seasons. He was signed to play for the Boise State Broncos after graduating from high school in 2025. Recently added co-lead plaintiff, Patrick Hall, is currently a high school junior who plays football for Mater Dei High School in Orange County.
CIF is an independent non-profit corporation that operates as the sole regulatory authority over high school sports in California. Its membership includes over 1,600 private and public schools throughout the state. The organization establishes rules for eligibility and participation and imposes strict penalties for violations of those rules.
Specifically, under CIF rules:
- Schools cannot share revenue directly with student-athletes.
- Booster clubs cannot form collectives.
- Athlete earning activities cannot be made on school property.
- The athletes cannot appear in uniform or school attire and cannot make use of the school or team name or other trademarks; and
- Student-athletes are forbidden from receiving financial rewards for their athletic performance and from transferring between member schools for athletic reasons.
The NIL claims
Because of these restrictions, neither Calhoun nor Hall has ever received personal compensation from CIF’s use of their athletic labor, names, images or likenesses in CIF’s broadcast, marketing, and social media activities, or from other activities to generate ticket sales and other revenues. The athletes contend that CIF’s anticompetitive actions have unlawfully deprived them and other similarly situated California high school student-athletes of the opportunity to share in the economic benefit they create.
On April 10, CIF filed a motion to dismiss in the Northern District of California. CIF contends that the athletes’ claims of harm were “speculative,” still do not show how the CIF’s rules injured them and concludes that they consequently lack standing to sue. The court will hear arguments on the motion on July 9.
If the lawsuit survives CIF’s latest motion to dismiss, the litigation will focus on three statutes designed to protect competition: the federal Sherman Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Sherman Antitrust Act
Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts or conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. Following NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA’s ban on compensation for educational expenses was deemed an illegal restraint of trade because it restricted the labor market for college athletes. The settlement negotiated in House v. NCAA addresses back-pay for NIL usage and establishes a framework for schools to share revenue directly with athletes. But settlements do not make law.
Courts have yet to confirm judicially that colleges must pay athletes for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. Calhoun raises new issues about secondary schools’ obligation to pay athletes for the use of their NIL under the Sherman Act.
Cartwright Act
California’s Cartwright Act is the state’s antitrust statute. It generally mirrors the Sherman Antitrust Act. On April 27, former college athlete (now NFL player) Jameson Williams filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against the NCAA, Big Ten and SEC. The suit alleges violations of the Cartwright Act, California Unfair Practices Act, Sherman Antitrust Act and Lanham Act and accuses the defendants of collusive, anticompetitive, and deceptive practices by using athletes’ NIL for financial gain without compensating them. The Williams lawsuit, although in its earliest stages, may be one to break through the judicial NIL barrier for college athletes.
California Unfair Competition Law
READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS
California’s UCL prohibits false advertising and illegal business practices. The law describes “unfair competition” as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, or false, deceptive, or misleading advertising. To pursue lawsuits under California’s unfair competition law, a consumer or business must prove suffering and financial or property losses due to an unfair practice. California plaintiffs frequently invoke the UCL in conjunction with the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Cartwright Act in unfair practices or antitrust lawsuits.
Calhoun still has a major hurdle to clear at the July 9 hearing on CIF’s motion to dismiss. However, the legal questions it raises seem increasingly ripe for a decision.
Source link
