What Is the Johnson v. NCAA College Athlete Lawsuit?

The Johnson v. NCAA lawsuit is a federal case arguing that college athletes should be classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and paid at least the federal minimum wage for the hours they spend practicing and competing. Filed in November 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by former Villanova football player Ralph “Trey” Johnson and other former college athletes, the suit names the NCAA and 25 Division I schools as defendants and carries the case number 19-cv-05230.¹² After a July 2024 ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set a new legal test for when an athlete counts as an employee, the case is back before the district court, and the judge has ordered the parties to report on settlement efforts.³

Who Trey Johnson Is and Why He Sued

Ralph “Trey” Johnson played defensive back for Villanova from 2013 to 2016, appearing in 35 games across three seasons after missing 2014 to injury.⁴ He enrolled as a physics major and switched to communications because physics coursework conflicted with football practice. “They say you’re a student-athlete, but I think it’s really athlete-student,” Johnson told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “The game comes first.”⁵

His argument is that athletes perform a job for their universities and should be paid an hourly wage on the same footing as other student workers, such as teaching assistants or concession stand staff.⁶

What the Plaintiffs Are Asking For

The complaint’s core claim is that college athletes generate substantial revenue for their schools through ticket sales, broadcasting deals, and licensing, all while working under detailed control by the NCAA and their institutions. That relationship, the plaintiffs argue, meets the FLSA’s broad definition of employment and entitles them to at least the federal minimum wage.⁷

Alongside the federal wage claims, the complaint alleges violations of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York state wage laws, and adds unjust enrichment claims.⁷⁸ The defendants took an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Four-Factor Test

On July 11, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Johnson v. NCAA, 108 F.4th 163. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and rejected the argument that the tradition of amateurism bars athletes from being employees, describing amateurism as a “frayed tradition” that cannot override the FLSA’s protections.⁹ The court also vacated the district court’s use of a multifactor test borrowed from Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, an unpaid-intern case, ruling that it was not the right framework for college athletes.⁷

In its place, the Third Circuit created a four-factor “economic realities” test. An athlete may qualify as an employee when they:

Perform services for another party;
Primarily benefit that other party through those services;
Operate under that party’s control or right of control; and
Receive or expect express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits in return.⁹

The panel stressed that the FLSA’s definition of “employee” is among the broadest in federal law and told courts to weigh the totality of circumstances rather than any single factor. The case went back to Judge Padova to be reconsidered under the new framework.⁷

Judge Porter’s Concurrence and the Title IX Problem

Circuit Judge David Porter agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to argue that the majority left lower courts without enough guidance on how to distinguish “work” from “play.”⁹ In his view, FBS football and elite men’s basketball players likely qualify as employees because they generate tangible revenue, while athletes in sports such as fencing, water polo, rifle, and golf are more plausibly engaged in play that the FLSA was never meant to cover.¹⁰

Porter also flagged a Title IX collision. If employment turns on revenue generation, male athletes in football and basketball could end up classified as employees while female athletes in non-revenue sports are not, producing a gendered pay disparity that sits uneasily with Title IX’s equal-treatment requirements.⁹

How Alston and House Changed the Stakes

Two other cases have reshaped the ground under Johnson. In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in NCAA v. Alston that NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act, treating the NCAA as a commercial enterprise subject to normal antitrust scrutiny.¹¹ Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence went further, writing that “nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate.”¹² Judge Padova cited that language when he denied the motion to dismiss in Johnson.⁸

Then, on June 6, 2025, Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken approved a $2.8 billion settlement in House v. NCAA, resolving three federal antitrust suits over the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete earning power.¹³ The NCAA will distribute nearly $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who competed from 2016 onward, and starting in the 2025-26 academic year, Division I schools may make direct payments to athletes from a revenue-sharing pool capped at roughly $20.5 million per school per year.¹⁴

That change matters directly for the fourth prong of the Third Circuit’s test. Before House, the NCAA could argue that athletes received only scholarships and that name, image, and likeness payments came from third parties. Now, money flows from universities to athletes, which makes it easier for plaintiffs to show an expectation of compensation.¹⁴

Where the Case Stands Now

As of early 2026, Johnson v. NCAA is back before Judge Padova. In February 2026, he ordered both sides to report on their “efforts” to reach a settlement by February 10, 2026. The case remains at the motion-to-dismiss stage under the new Third Circuit framework, with no trial date set. If it clears that threshold, it would move into pretrial discovery, followed by a class certification determination that could reach Division I athletes going back to 2016 or 2017.³

One boundary is worth noting. The Third Circuit’s ruling binds only federal courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands, so its four-factor test is not automatically the law elsewhere in the country. The question of whether college athletes are employees under the FLSA can still come out differently in other circuits.

What Happens If the Athletes Win

If the Johnson plaintiffs ultimately prevail, athletes classified as employees could gain rights to minimum wage, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and collective bargaining. NCAA President Charlie Baker has said that 95% of student-athletes could lose the ability to play at the collegiate level if employment status is imposed, reflecting the NCAA’s position that paying athletes as employees would be financially unsustainable for most programs.⁹

The most likely first group to satisfy all four prongs is Division I football and men’s basketball players at major programs, given the revenue they produce and the level of institutional control over their schedules. Whether athletes in non-revenue sports would also qualify depends on how district courts apply the “primary benefit” and “compensation” factors, and that ambiguity is what drives Judge Porter’s Title IX concerns.¹⁰⁹

1
American Bar Institute. NCAA’s Losing Streak in Court Continues — For Now: Johnson v. NCAA
2
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 22-1223
3
Sportico. Student-Athlete Employment: NCAA Johnson
4
Villanova University Athletics. Trey Johnson Roster Profile
5
The Philadelphia Inquirer. Villanova’s Trey Johnson, Poppy Livers, and the NCAA Lawsuit
6
The New York Times / The Athletic. Johnson vs. NCAA Case: College Sports Employees
7
Justia. Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 22-1223
8
Villanova Law Review. Third Circuit to Review Game-Changing Play in Johnson v. NCAA
9
Harvard Law Review. Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 108 F.4th 163 (3d Cir. 2024)
10
Sportico. Johnson v. NCAA Concurring Opinion
11
Supreme Court of the United States. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ____
12
Harvard Law Review. NCAA v. Alston
13
ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement
14
OnLabor. College Athlete Employment Status After Johnson and House