Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects NCAA’s Limits on Student-Athletes’ Educational Benefits

What’s the story?

• On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of student-athletes at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) institutions, ruling that the NCAA cannot restrict schools from competing for talented athletes by offering additional education-related benefits.
• Known as NCAA v. Alston, the case involves a class-action lawsuit alleging the NCAA’s rules against compensating college athletes violate federal antitrust law. The NCAA contends that allowing student-athletes to be paid and the resulting economic competition between colleges would “destroy consumer demand for college sports.”
• When the case was heard at the district court level, the federal judge ruled that the NCAA could prohibit compensation related to athletics, such as a salary, but barred the NCAA from limiting benefits that are related to education, such as a paid post-graduate internship. That decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
• The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the stance of the lower courts and allows schools to offer student-athletes additional educational benefits.

What did the justices say?

• Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court, which concluded:

“Some will think the district court did not go far enough. By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. Still, some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief. At the same time, others will think the district court went too far by undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics. For our part, though, we can only agree with the Ninth Circuit: “‘The national debate about amateurism in college sports is important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it. Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law.’” That review persuades us the district court acted within the law’s bounds.”

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion which concluded:

“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 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.”

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: College Baseball: Minda Haas Kuhlmann via Flickr / Creative Commons | Supreme Court: kjetil_r via Flickr / Creative Commons)