The Case for Reviving the Four-Year Deal

30 Pages Posted: 25 Apr 2012

Date Written: April 18, 2012


The four-year deal is dead. It was quietly killed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which now mandates that the only permissible athletic scholarship is a one-year deal renewable scholarship at the sole discretion of the school. The legal premise of this Essay is that the mandate for a one-year deal violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. The policy position taken is that a successful attack upon the “one-year renewable” will be beneficial to the overall health of big time intercollegiate sports. Part II of the Essay tells the story of how the once customary four-year deal was killed and replaced by the mandatory one-year renewable. Part III lays out the not-so-hypothetical facts of a potential plaintiff — a student-athlete “run off ” either because he or she suffered a performance-reducing injury or just simply did not “pan out” as the coaches had hoped. In this Part, the student-athlete’s section 1 claim is examined, and a result favorable to the plaintiff is anticipated. Part IV explores the likely consequences of such a finding, concluding that a successful attack on the four-year deal will have positive effects on intercollegiate sports.

Suggested Citation

Yasser, Raymond L., The Case for Reviving the Four-Year Deal (April 18, 2012). Tulane Law Review, Vol. 86, p. 1, 2012; University of Tulsa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-05. Available at SSRN:

Raymond L. Yasser (Contact Author)

University of Tulsa ( email )

3120 E. Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK 74104
United States

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics