SCOTUS invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateur" Rule

[adkindo]

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog

NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.

10:12 AM · Jun 21, 2021

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog

Here is the opinion in NCAA v. Alston. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to concur. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

10:13 AM · Jun 21, 2021

[adkindo]

Strong words in the closing of Kavanaugh's concurring opinion....

To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain
important traditions that have become part of the fabric of
America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the
packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s
lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track
and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball
World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes
on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s
decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the
backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated.
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. And under ordinary principles
of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should
be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.

[texasdave]

So, what is the end result of this ruling? I am not qualified to offer an educated opinion. Put another way, what happens now? Something? Nothing? Do the richer get richer, and the poor poorer?

[adkindo]

So, what is the end result of this ruling? I am not qualified to offer an educated opinion. Put another way, what happens now? Something? Nothing? Do the richer get richer, and the poor poorer?

Rich get richer as it creates more paths to compensate athletes as long as it can be connected to education. I think more importantly is the words of Kavanaugh. This is a narrow focused opinion, but I think his writing signals at least he (and likely the court) is almost inviting future cases related to student athlete compensation. If I was the NCAA, I would be very pessimistic about appealing future student athlete compensation cases to the current court. I would even go as far as the court is signaling to the NCAA to resolve these issues before they get to the court, because you will not have a sympathetic court to your positions as it relates to these issues in the future.

[WVRed]

Rich get richer as it creates more paths to compensate athletes as long as it can be connected to education. I think more importantly is the words of Kavanaugh. This is a narrow focused opinion, but I think his writing signals at least he (and likely the court) is almost inviting future cases related to student athlete compensation. If I was the NCAA, I would be very pessimistic about appealing future student athlete compensation cases to the current court. I would even go as far as the court is signaling to the NCAA to resolve these issues before they get to the court, because you will not have a sympathetic court to your positions as it relates to these issues in the future.

On a side note, a former WVU football player was the Ed Obannon in this case.

[Sea Ray]

This decision is so narrow I don't think it changes much and I wonder how it ever got to the SCOTUS. Is providing tutoring really a legal issue for our highest court?

I disagree with this comment from Kavanaugh:

But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s
decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the
backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated.


Very few athletes are raising money for the school. Power 5 men's football and basketball are about the only ones. With a few exceptions, all the others are a drain on the budget

[Chip R]

This decision is so narrow I don't think it changes much and I wonder how it ever got to the SCOTUS. Is providing tutoring really a legal issue for our highest court?

I don't know. Perhaps there will be some ticky-tack things that were violations before that won't be now.

More importantly the decision sets a precedent about the compensation - or lack thereof - of student athletes. I'd like to see this decision apply to minor league baseball players but MLB has that antitrust exemption. Maybe this decision could be used as a precedent in overturning that exemption.