Supreme Court Rules NCAA Went too far in Cracking Down on Student-Athlete Pay
BY MATTHEW VADUM June 21, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-ncaa-went-too-far-in-cracking-down-on-student-athlete-pay_3867699.html

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this morning that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) regulations that restrict benefits that may be given to student-athletes violate federal antitrust law.

The NCAA had argued that policing student-athlete pay helps to preserve the long-standing amateur status of college athletics. The high court was unmoved, rejecting the NCAA’s argument that it should enjoy antitrust immunity and affirmed a lower court’s order that will allow member schools to offer more education-related benefits to student-athletes.

The June 21 ruling, which opens the door for student-athletes to receive greater compensation, could reshape college sports throughout the country.

It’s a big industry. According to an NCAA report, more than $18.8 billion was spent on athletics in 2019 at the 1,100-plus NCAA schools across all three divisions. Of that total, $3.6 billion went toward financial aid for student-athletes, and $3.7 billion was spent on coaches’ compensation.

The case is actually two cases that were heard together: NCAA v. Alston, court file 20-512, and American Athletic Conference (AAC) v. Alston, court file 20-520. Former football player Shawne Alston, one of a group of football and basketball athletes challenging the NCAA, was a running back for the West Virginia University Mountaineers from 2009 to 2012.

The Biden administration sided with the student-athletes during telephonic oral arguments March 31.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion in the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

Gorsuch recounted that the trial court “issued a 50-page opinion that cuts both ways” after “amassing a vast record and conducting an exhaustive trial.”

The trial court carefully reviewed the NCAA’s arguments but was not convinced the organization deserved to be exempted from antitrust laws, he wrote.

Although U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of California “refused to disturb the NCAA’s rules limiting undergraduate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance,” she struck down “NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits schools may offer student-athletes—such as rules that prohibit schools from offering graduate or vocational school scholarships.”

Wilken found that the NCAA and its member schools have the “power to restrain student-athlete compensation in any way and at any time they wish, without any meaningful risk of diminishing their market dominance.” These compensation limits “produce significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market.”

Even though member schools “compete fiercely in recruiting student-athletes, the NCAA uses its monopsony power to ‘cap artificially the compensation offered to recruits,’” Gorsuch wrote, quoting Wilken. (A monopsony is a market situation in which there is only one buyer.)

If the NCAA’s restraints were removed, competition among schools would increase and student-athletes “would receive offers that would more closely match the value of their athletic services,” Wilken wrote.

Gorsuch commended the trial court for a job well done.

“Courts reviewing complex business arrangements should, in other words, be wary about invitations to ‘set sail on a sea of doubt,’” the justice wrote citing a legal precedent from 1898.

“But we do not believe the district court fell prey to that temptation. Its judgment does not float on a sea of doubt but stands on firm ground—an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful legal analysis consistent with established antitrust principles, and a healthy dose of judicial humility.”

Justice Kavanaugh noted that the NCAA “has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive” and “has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny” with “surprising success.”

“The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction,” he wrote.

How do you feel about that?

I think this poses issues both for the NCAA and the NFL, who have been taking advantage of the situation for years.

For the NCAA schools, it may introduce a very different dynamic into the economic model.
At big programs, football pays the bills for all the lessor sports (including girls sports...sorry, just keeping it real.)
Having to pay more for players may greatly reduce the economic juggernaut...and increase the risk.
What about transferring?
If
a player has a great freshmen year at Wisconsin and Alabama wants to pay 100k a year to go there, can they switch.
If not, you are denying the player the ability to maximize their earnings potential.
We may end up with a baseball model for all sports.
(Speaking of baseball, the CWS was fantastic viewing over the weekend)
Also economic standards may tighten, leading to more interesting consequences.
My guess, long term results, higher tuitions, and a return to more academic college sports.

For the NFL, they may want to/have to invest in a developmental league for the players who cannot, will not, or choose not to actually study something other than sports.
Perhaps there is roster expansion for more developmental players.
And when can kids get drafted....after high school?

It is really interesting and I think the landscape will change over the next 10-20 years.

Another note....NYT wrote:

Change comes to the N.C.A.A.

In a unanimous ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court said that the N.C.A.A., which governs college sports, could not prohibit student-athletes from receiving modest, education-related payments.

The decision doesn’t mean that college football players can suddenly receive big salaries. But it is a milestone for those trying to change the model of college sports in the U.S., and it could open the door for broader challenges.

Alan Blinder, who covers college sports for The Times, helps us explain what yesterday’s ruling means, and what’s next for the N.C.A.A.


Billion-dollar amateurs

The N.C.A.A. says its athletes are amateurs. That may have been true decades ago, when competition was mostly limited to other schools in the area and less intense training schedules allowed students to balance their athletics with their schoolwork.
But it’s an increasingly hard argument to make, particularly for high-profile sports like football and basketball. Conferences sign lucrative TV deals; coaches earn millions of dollars; teams crisscross the country for games and can spend 50 hours a week training.

“The N.C.A.A., in a nonpandemic year, has more than a billion dollars flow through it. Even more money moves through the conferences and schools because it’s not just TV; it’s apparel and ticket sales and everything else,” Alan told me. “What you’ve seen over the years, as more and more money sloshes around, is that amateurism seemed less visible to a lot of casual fans.”

Those who oppose paying N.C.A.A. athletes say that the current compensation model, in which colleges cover the cost of attendance — including tuition, room and board, and some living expenses — is appropriate. They also say it preserves a line, however faint, between college sports and professional sports.

But others, including former athletes, say the model uses players’ skill and labor to generate huge revenues, and offers generous compensation to everyone except those playing the game.

What the court ruling means
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t immediately change much. The justices said that schools could offer additional education-related perks — things like scholarships for graduate school, internships or computer equipment.

“The question before the court was a fairly narrow one, and the court responded with a narrow ruling,” Alan said. “But what they did was trim the N.C.A.A.’s sails. They said that their power was not absolute and unchallenged.”
That was most apparent in a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who signaled that the court might be interested in going further in a future N.C.A.A. case. “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,” Kavanaugh wrote.


More change around the corner
“To a certain extent, the Supreme Court ruling is a bit of a sideshow,” Alan told me. [h]“The real change that’s going to affect most athletes playing now is coming a week from Thursday.”

That’s when at least six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas — will enact laws allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. A player could, for example, sign an endorsement deal, sell autographs or host a training camp.[/h]
Some universities worry that the patchwork rules will create unfair advantages in recruiting high school players, and many have pushed for nationwide standards. The N.C.A.A. agreed to modernize its endorsement rules in 2019, but has not yet produced its own plan. The group’s president asked Congress to help by creating federal regulations, but that effort has also stalled.

Now, as Alan recently wrote,[h] “the college sports industry is bracing for an era they expect will be marked by chaos and uncertainty.”[/h]

This is a subject I am not very well versed in. I'm not sure how I feel about any of it. The NCAA makes millions off student athletes. What is done with that money? Does it go towards more scholarships? Does it go back into the students or does it line the pockets of others?

One uninformed and uneducated concern I would have is that kids are going to gravitate towards the more popular schools because it gives them a bigger audience to make money off their name/likeness. We see this kind of thing happening in the NBA and NFL where players are more concerned with their "brand" than the team.

I'm wondering what a development league for post-High School students would look like.
Kids could go straight from High School and start earning cash. It would probably kill the NFL because it would water down the product by a lot of kids not even trying the developmental league.

I really don't know how to feel about it. It doesn't sit well with me that people are profiting off kids, and not letting the kids get some of it back in some manner other than scholarships.
I dunno enough about it.