Ethics CasesSport

Cases · NCAA · 2002–2004

Jeremy Bloom v. NCAA: Endorsements, Eligibility, and the Pre-NIL Era

Jeremy Bloom was a World Cup freestyle moguls champion and 2002 Olympian who was also recruited to play football at the University of Colorado. NCAA rules let him be paid as a professional skier, but they barred him from accepting endorsements or paid media work. Bloom argued that he needed that income to fund his skiing career. Colorado's waiver requests and his lawsuit both failed. After he began accepting ski endorsements, the NCAA declared him ineligible in August 2004, and his college football career ended.

Timeline

  1. Bloom finishes ninth in men's moguls at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, having deferred his enrollment at Colorado for a year.
  2. Colorado asks the NCAA for a waiver to allow Bloom's endorsement and media activities. The NCAA denies it, and Bloom sues the NCAA and CU in Colorado state court.
  3. A Boulder County district judge denies a preliminary injunction. Bloom drops his endorsements and plays the 2002 season, then plays again in 2003.
  4. Bloom begins accepting ski endorsements, saying he cannot afford to train for the 2006 Olympics without them.
  5. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirms the denial of the injunction (Bloom v. NCAA, 93 P.3d 621).
  6. The NCAA denies a new waiver and reinstatement request, and its Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee rejects the final appeal.
  7. Context: the Supreme Court decides NCAA v. Alston (June 21), and the NCAA adopts an interim policy allowing athletes to earn NIL income (effective July 1).

The ethical issues

  • Amateurism: does banning endorsements protect the collegiate model, or only restrict athletes' earnings?
  • Consistency: athletes could earn a professional salary in one sport but could not accept endorsements, a line that critics called arbitrary.
  • Fairness to Olympic-sport athletes, whose sports often depend on sponsorship rather than salaries.
  • Rule-following versus civil disobedience: the NCAA stressed that Bloom accepted endorsements after being told twice that they were not allowed.
  • Institutional advocacy: what a university owes an athlete when the institution is also a member of the rule-making association.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Jeremy BloomCompeting in both sports and funding Olympic training.
University of ColoradoThe athlete's eligibility and team success; obligations as an NCAA member; staying in compliance.
NCAA and member institutionsConsistent amateurism rules and avoiding precedents that would be hard to contain.
Other two-sport and Olympic athletesHow the precedent affects their own earnings and eligibility.
SponsorsAccess to a marketable athlete.

Why this case matters

Bloom’s case is a clear pre-NIL example of how amateurism rules applied to an athlete whose market value came from a different sport. It is useful for comparing past rules with today’s, and for asking which of the old justifications still hold.

Discussion questions

  1. Was the NCAA's line between pro salaries (allowed) and endorsements (banned) principled? Explain the strongest argument on each side.
  2. Should the NCAA have granted Bloom a waiver because his opportunities came from skiing, not football?
  3. Was Bloom's choice to accept endorsements while his case was pending ethically justified?
  4. How would Bloom's situation be handled under today's NIL rules, and what ethical issues remain unresolved?

Sources

  1. Bloom v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 93 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2004) — OpenJurist
  2. Courts give NCAA favorable rulings in two litigation cases (May 24, 2004) — NCAA News Archive
  3. Judge rules against Bloom in eligibility case (Aug. 15, 2002) — ESPN
  4. Moguls, Men: Final Round (2002 Olympic Winter Games) — Olympedia
  5. No football for Bloom while taking ski endorsements — ESPN (Associated Press)
  6. NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021), opinion — Supreme Court of the United States