{"id":479328,"date":"2021-06-21T21:57:47","date_gmt":"2021-06-22T04:57:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/?p=479328"},"modified":"2021-06-21T21:57:47","modified_gmt":"2021-06-22T04:57:47","slug":"supreme-court-unanimously-rules-against-ncaa-in-compensation-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-against-ncaa-in-compensation-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against NCAA in Compensation Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against NCAA in Compensation Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Monday ruled by a 9-0 margin to affirm a decision that allows a pathway for NCAA student-athletes to be compensated by schools.<\/p>\n

The decision upheld a district court ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust law in limiting the education-related benefits that athletes can receive from schools. It removes the caps on education-related compensation that schools can provide. The case, NCAA vs. Alston et al, applies further pressure on the NCAA, in addition to the growing calls for athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness (NIL) via third-party endorsements that have prompted legislation in 19 states<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Read the full court opinion here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch<\/strong> penned a narrow opinion asserting that the 9th Circuit Court ruling in 2018 was correct by holding that, \u201cthe student-athletes had shown the NCAA enjoys the power to set wages in the market for student-athletes\u2019 labor\u2014and that the NCAA has exercised that power in ways that have produced significant anticompetitive effects.\u201d However, Gorsuch does not prescribe solutions, urging judicial caution in stepping in to fix private business relationships. While the decision does serve to further chip away<\/a> at the NCAA\u2019s view of amateurism, it does not explicitly declare it as violating anti-trust laws.<\/p>\n

The specific issue is over academic-adjacent expenses, such as computer costs, study abroad and internships, can be handled. The NCAA rules on those now must be modified or replaced, which gives individual schools more discretion on how to allocate those resources. The larger picture sets Alston as precedent for future litigation against the NCAA and its anti-trust standing.<\/p>\n

The more forceful rebuke of the NCAA was provided in Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s<\/strong> concurring opinion. It begins by explicitly stating that \u201cthe NCAA has violated the antitrust laws\u201d dating to the Sherman Act of 1890, passed little more than a decade before the NCAA was formed. While reasserting that Monday\u2019s decision is narrow in the portion of the NCAA\u2019s business it is ruling on, Kavanaugh highlights that \u201cthe NCAA\u2019s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the three points Kavanaugh makes:<\/p>\n