Bloom v. NCAA was a Colorado lawsuit brought by Jeremy Bloom, a University of Colorado football player and World Cup freestyle mogul skiing champion, who wanted to keep endorsement and media income from his skiing career without losing his college football eligibility. The Colorado Court of Appeals sided with the NCAA, affirming the trial court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction and allowing the association to enforce its amateurism rules against him.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
Who Jeremy Bloom Was
Bloom played football at the University of Colorado. He was also an elite skier who had won the World Cup championship in freestyle moguls. His professional opportunities came from skiing, a sport the NCAA does not govern, not from football.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
What the Dispute Was About
To support his skiing career, Bloom took corporate endorsements, modeling work, and paid media appearances. The University of Colorado asked the NCAA for waivers so Bloom could keep that income and still play football. The NCAA denied the waiver requests. Bloom then sued, seeking a court order that would stop the NCAA from declaring him ineligible.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
His argument was narrow: because the endorsements were tied to skiing, and skiing sits outside NCAA jurisdiction, the association’s restrictions on paid endorsements and media work should not reach him. The NCAA’s position was that its amateurism rules apply to a student-athlete across the board, whatever sport produces the outside money.
How the Court Ruled
The Colorado Court of Appeals was not asked to weigh the wisdom of the NCAA’s rules. It reviewed whether the trial court had made a legal error or abused its discretion in denying Bloom a preliminary injunction, applying the standard factors that govern that kind of temporary relief.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
Two points drove the outcome. First, courts are generally reluctant to interfere with the internal rules of voluntary associations like the NCAA. Second, the court rejected Bloom’s contention that the NCAA had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in refusing the waivers. On that footing, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the injunction, and the NCAA was free to keep enforcing its eligibility rules against Bloom while the litigation continued.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
What the Ruling Meant for Bloom
The practical effect was a forced choice. If Bloom kept taking payment for his skiing endorsements and media work, he risked losing his football eligibility at Colorado. If he wanted to keep playing, the outside income had to go. The decision confirmed that, under the NCAA’s amateurism framework at the time, professional activity in one sport could cost an athlete eligibility in another.1Justia. Bloom v. NCAA
Why the Case Still Matters
Bloom v. NCAA is cited for two related propositions: that NCAA amateurism rules reach a student-athlete’s commercial activity even when the money comes from a sport the NCAA does not govern, and that courts will defer heavily to a voluntary athletic association’s internal rulemaking absent a clear showing of arbitrary or capricious conduct. For multi-sport athletes with outside professional value, that combination set the boundary the courts were willing to police.