This study used Critical Race Theory to examine the economic model of the NCAA, through Article 12 (amateurism), which prohibits student-athletes from economically benefitting from their own name, image, and likeness (NIL), and whether the aforementioned policy is equitable in regard to the Black male athletes participating in revenue sports. This critical case study analyzes the NCAA's implementation of Bylaw Article 12. Conducting this analysis from a critical perspective, we used tenets from Critical Race Theory (CRT), and also adopted components from a critical policy analysis approach (Young and Diem 2017) focusing on: (1) differences between NCAA policy rhetoric and practice (what policy "states" about NCAA athletics and how those policies are enforced) based on prior research and available NCAA data; (2) sources of the policy and how it developed over time; (3) distribution of power, resources, and knowledge in NCAA athletics; (4) inequality, power, and privilege (how students of color are [or are not] represented in the policy); and (5) resistance among NCAA athletes such that students of color become involved to self-advocate and make their voices heard (Antony-Newman 2019; Wright, Whitaker, Khalifa, and Briscoe 2020). The findings support differences between policy language and the implementation of the policy proves problematic, as it belies the true spirit of the policy and produces inequity within the treatment of student-athletes. Additionally, this paper makes recommendations as to how the NCAA can equitably compensate student-athletes.