84 F.4th 166
4th Cir.2023Background:
- In 2017 Brian Bowen II, a five‑star recruit, signed a full four‑year athletic scholarship with the University of Louisville (Louisville) to play Division I basketball.
- Bowen’s father accepted a covert payment arranged by Adidas associates; when the bribery scheme became public Louisville withdrew Bowen from the team but continued the scholarship for a time.
- The NCAA ultimately denied reinstatement; Bowen transferred, incurred roughly $30,000 in legal fees trying to regain eligibility, and his anticipated NBA trajectory was impaired.
- Bowen sued Adidas and related actors under RICO seeking treble damages for lost future professional earnings and attorney’s fees; after discovery the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling Bowen showed no injury to his “business or property” under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
- The Fourth Circuit majority affirmed the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration; Judge King dissented, arguing loss of NCAA eligibility is a cognizable RICO injury (invoking NCAA v. Alston).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost basketball‑related scholarship benefits (coaching, playing time, training) constitute an injury to "business or property" under RICO | Bowen: the scholarship exchange included valuable basketball development benefits; losing them is a property/business injury | Defs: the written scholarship unambiguously promised tuition/room/board/etc.; it did not promise playing time or coaching; Bowen received what contract required | Court: No. Contract unambiguous under Kentucky law; benefits Bowen claims were not promised and he received the contracted scholarship |
| Whether loss of NCAA eligibility is an injury to "business or property" under RICO | Bowen: eligibility is the market for his athletic labor (Alston); losing it deprived him of valuable compensation (coaching/playing experience) and prospective NBA opportunities | Defs: eligibility is a status, not "property"; loss of expectancy/opportunity is not a RICO injury; Bowen still received maximum NCAA compensation (scholarship) | Court (majority): No. Eligibility is not property and loss of an expectancy/opportunity is not a cognizable RICO injury |
| Whether attorney’s fees incurred trying to restore eligibility are recoverable RICO damages | Bowen: the fees are concrete pecuniary losses causally linked to defendants’ misconduct | Defs: fees flow from a non‑cognizable underlying injury (loss of eligibility) and thus are not recoverable under §1964(c) | Court: No. Fees are pecuniary losses tied to a non‑cognizable RICO injury and cannot be recovered |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying reconsideration after NCAA v. Alston | Bowen: Alston confirms Division I athletes have a market for their labor, supporting that eligibility is a business/property interest; warrants reconsideration | Defs: Alston addressed antitrust and compensation limits, not RICO injury doctrine; does not change §1964(c) analysis | Court: Denial affirmed. Alston did not alter RICO injury law; no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) ("property" construed broadly for statutory injury requirements)
- Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (proximate causation and RICO/Clayton Act injury parallels)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (RICO remedial scope and private cause of action principles)
- NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) (Supreme Court recognition that Division I is the market for elite student‑athlete labor)
- Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Elec. Motor & Supply, Inc., 262 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of §1964(c) injury as statutory element)
- Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Dep’t of Educ., 639 F.3d 91 (4th Cir. 2011) (no property interest in intercollegiate athletic participation for due process purposes)
- O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) (treating athlete‑university scholarship exchange as commercial in some contexts)
- United States v. Gatto, 986 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2021) (criminal convictions describing Adidas bribery scheme and recognizing Bowen as an injured victim)