NCAA v. University of North Dakota

Team:
Caroline Hendrick
Tara Mullins


In the noteworthy case of NCAA v. University of North Dakota, the plaintiff

was the State of North Dakota, which was represented by and through the State

Board of Higher Education and also through the University of North Dakota. The

defendant of the case was the NCAA. The case was filed in October 2006 in the

Northeast Central Judicial District Court. The case continued and was brought to the

court’s attention for almost five years, but the current status of the case is

permanently settled.

The main concern that the plaintiff was asking for was for the permission of

the court to retain its “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo, and to be able to enforce

the University of North Dakota contractual and legal rights as a member of the

NCAA. Since the Sioux tribes are prevalent in North Dakota, the name was seen as

offensive, violent, and unrepresentative of their tribe and culture.

There were three major causes of action in NCAA v. University of North

Dakota. The first major cause was a breach of contract. The NCAA Executive

Committee does not have the direct authority to adopt legislation “by circumventing

the clearly defined legislative process,” “imposing restrictions on site selection,”

or “denying member institutions earned home team advantage in championship

events,” as stated in the contract. Due to this apparent breach of contract, University

of North Dakota was awarded substantial monetary damages.

The second major cause of action was due to the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing. Involving this specific cause of action, NCAA failed to follow

the terms of the contract and also failed to delineate and apply an appropriate and

consistent standard to all of its associated members under the application of the

policy. NCAA denied the right to announce a clear standard or how exactly it would

be applied in determining whether the mascot, nickname, and imagery of the Native

American “Fighting Sioux,” was “hostile or abusive” according to this policy.

The last cause of action was an unlawful restraint on trade. The be

considered a relevant market in the NCAA involves intercollegiate athletics and all

of it’s submarkets, participating in all championship games and events, hosting and

placing bids to host said events, and continuing the associated marketing and

merchandising, all which include the state of North Dakota. Because of this restraint

on trade, North Dakota was put in a competitive disadvantage for the NCAA

championship competitions. This resulted in a commercial boycott against the

University of North Dakota since they were ineligible to bid to host or host any

championship events, thus denying University of North Dakota from receiving any

commercial benefits from hosting said events and all NCAA members were urged to

put a pause on regular season games with University of North Dakota. This in turn

negatively impacted multiple consumer groups associated with the University of

North Dakota, including but not limited to, member institutions, athletes, fans, and

alumni.