In the world of sports governance, certain organizations hold a dual grip on their respective industries—controlling both competition and athlete compensation. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the United States and the Canadian Curling Association (CCA) in Canada are two prime examples of this monopoly-monopsony dynamic.
While these institutions have played significant roles in promoting their respective sports, they have also faced legal challenges and criticism for limiting financial opportunities for athletes. Understanding their monopolistic and monopsonistic control can provide valuable insights into how sports organizations shape the economics of athletic competition.
Understanding Monopoly and Monopsony in Sports
To grasp the full impact of the NCAA and CCA, it’s essential to understand two key economic concepts:
- Monopoly: A single entity dominates a market, controlling access to goods, services, or competitions while limiting alternatives.
- Monopsony: A market where there is only one dominant buyer controlling how much suppliers (in this case, athletes) can earn.
Both organizations exhibit monopoly power by controlling the biggest events in their respective sports, and monopsony power by restricting how athletes are compensated.
Let’s explore how these dynamics play out within the NCAA and CCA, shaping both athlete opportunities and the broader sports landscape.
The NCAA as a Monopoly: Controlling Collegiate Athletics
The NCAA is the governing body for college sports in the U.S., overseeing everything from March Madness to the College Football Playoff. With this control, the NCAA effectively operates as a monopoly, as it dictates who can participate in college athletics and under what conditions.
Exclusive Control Over Major Events
The NCAA organizes some of the biggest revenue-generating sports events in the world. The NCAA Basketball Tournament (March Madness) and college football bowl games attract millions of viewers and billions of dollars in revenue.
Because no alternative organization offers comparable competitions, student-athletes must abide by the NCAA’s rules to compete at the college level. This lack of competition reinforces the NCAA’s monopoly power over collegiate sports.
Legal Challenges to NCAA’s Monopoly
In 1984, the Supreme Court case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma found that the NCAA’s control over TV broadcast rights violated antitrust laws. This ruling weakened the NCAA’s monopoly over television deals, allowing individual schools and conferences to negotiate their own broadcast agreements.
However, despite this ruling, the NCAA still maintains a monopoly over the structure of college sports competitions, ensuring that all major tournaments and championships remain under its control.
The NCAA as a Monopsony: Restricting Athlete Compensation
For decades, the NCAA imposed strict limits on how student athletes could be compensated, reinforcing its monopsony power. Athletes could receive scholarships, but were forbidden from earning money through sponsorships, endorsements, or their own name, image, and likeness (NIL).
Court Rulings and Athlete Compensation Reforms
Over time, legal challenges have forced changes to the NCAA’s structure:
- 2021: NCAA v. Alston – The Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust laws, leading to expanded benefits for athletes.
- 2021: Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Rights – A major shift allowed student-athletes to profit from endorsements, leading to lucrative NIL deals for top college players.
- 2024: NCAA and Major Conferences Settlement – Schools can now directly pay student-athletes, marking a historic change in college sports economics.
These rulings weakened the NCAA’s monopsony but did not eliminate it. The NCAA still dictates eligibility rules, making it difficult for alternative governing bodies to emerge.
The CCA as a Monopoly: Controlling Canadian Curling
In Canada, the Canadian Curling Association (CCA) serves a similar role in curling as the NCAA does in college sports. The CCA oversees major national championships, including:
- The Brier (Men’s Championship)
- The Scotties Tournament of Hearts (Women’s Championship)
These events are the pathway to international competition, meaning any competitive curler must play under the CCA’s system to reach the World Championships and the Olympics.
Just like the NCAA, the CCA’s monopoly control ensures that no other organization can offer an alternative structure that carries the same prestige and rewards.
The CCA as a Monopsony: Limiting Earning Potential
Beyond controlling competition, the CCA has also been criticized for restricting curler earnings. For many years, curlers had few financial opportunities outside of national competitions.
The Rise of the World Curling Tour (WCT)
In response to these financial limitations, the World Curling Tour (WCT) emerged as an alternative. The WCT:
Offers independent tournaments with higher prize money
Allows curlers to compete outside the CCA’s system
Challenges the financial restrictions imposed by the CCA
However, the CCA still holds control over national team selection, meaning that even top curlers must participate in CCA events to qualify for the Olympics.
This forces curlers to balance WCT competitions with CCA obligations, keeping the CCA in a position of power.
The Impact on Athletes: Monopoly and Monopsony in Action
The monopoly-monopsony dynamic of the NCAA and CCA has historically limited athlete earnings and opportunities. By controlling both:
- The biggest competitions (monopoly)
- Athlete compensation and participation (monopsony)
These organizations have maintained a firm grip on their sports, suppressing athlete income while maximizing their own financial gain.
Recent Changes and Market Challenges
The NCAA has been forced to allow NIL deals and direct payments to athletes.
The CCA faces growing competition from independent curling events.
While these changes improve athlete financial freedom, both organizations still maintain significant control over their sports.
What’s Next? The Future of Athlete Compensation and Sports Governance
The landscape of sports governance is evolving, with legal challenges and alternative competitions reshaping traditional monopolies and monopsonies.
For the NCAA, the biggest question remains:
- Will full professionalization of college sports become inevitable?
For the CCA, the challenge is:
- Will independent curling competitions eventually overshadow the national championship model?
One thing is clear: Athletes now have more power than ever before. As legal challenges and market forces continue to break down monopoly and monopsony structures, organizations like the NCAA and CCA must adapt—or risk losing control.
The NCAA and CCA have long held a dominant grip over their sports, controlling both competition and athlete compensation. While recent changes have challenged their power, they still wield significant influence over how sports are structured.
Athletes and advocates for fair compensation must continue pushing for reforms to ensure that sports organizations serve the athletes—not just themselves.
The question is no longer if these monopolistic and monopsonistic structures will change, but rather how quickly they will adapt to the new reality.
