Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA in 9-0 Decision

Since 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has mostly kept athletes under an amateurism status. This means that athletes are allowed to participate in collegiate sports if they give up their rights to receive any payments for competing, while the NCAA can essentially profit off their name, image, or likeness (NIL).

I say “essentially“ because while the bylaws state that they cannot single out any particular athlete for the purposes of profiting, those marketable materials with their images plastered on them are what bring the eyeballs and paying customers in for a show.

Photo by Alex Batchelor on Unsplash

The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar per year business ($18.9 billion in 2019) with thousands of athletes as employees. These athletes are typically compensated in the form of educational scholarships. But is it enough?

Many would argue it is, and that the main objective of going to college is to get an education. The NCAA, in fact, has stated many times throughout the years that the emphasis is to keep their students focused on classwork and let sports be the vehicle that pays the way. Hence the order in the word “student-athlete“. It affords students the opportunity to get an education they might otherwise not have full means to obtain.

Another proposed benefit of amateurism is in its ability to protect student-athletes from unfair advantages through using money to attract high-end post-graduate students from other schools or professional athletes to join teams to win championships and then leave.

Of course, many more feel student-athletes are the reason the institutions make as much money as they do. So why not compensate them more for the work they are doing? Big names draw big followings, and those followings are what drive ticket sales, jerseys, merchandise, TV spots, and more.

Division I student-athletes depend on the skills they hone outside the classroom to help carve out academic and financial futures of their own. Image by Keith Johnston from Pixabay.

The NCAA appeared before the Supreme Court on June 21 to appeal a decision, asking to continue limiting some educational benefits for student-athletes. While athletes still cannot receive direct compensation like professional athletes, they want to restrain additional benefits such as laptops, musical instruments, or post-graduate paid internships.

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the NCAA, citing violations against anti-trust laws. In particular, Section 1 of the Sherman Act which states “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

By limiting educational benefits for a student-athlete, it becomes more difficult for other schools to compete for athletes.

This of course opens the door to other cases that can be brought up in the future for further considerations.

The fear proposed by the NCAA years ago was that allowing student-athletes to receive non-educational compensation such as cash, could cause a rift to develop between professional sporting events and collegiate ones. When there are no clear defining lines between the two, the demand for either could suffer.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said about the NCAA that, while not a part of the present case, them barring non-educational payments and endorsement deals “raise serious questions under the antitrust laws.”

He went on to say “The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”

“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.”

Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

The National Federation of State High School Associations chimed in supporting the NCAA with a somewhat valid point, saying that “many premier high school student-athletes would become motivated less by their love of sports and more by the prospect of being rewarded handsomely to play certain sports in college.”

This is a point that many can sympathize with and already an issue coaches and institutions face. It’s an athlete’s own decision to forego classwork for sport and a responsibility they must shoulder.

Justice Kavanaugh remarked, “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.”

With the price of college continuing to rise, college loans (the biggest scam in U.S. history) a very long-term problem for most, and the value of the dollar slowly being eroded, it is refreshing to see at least a little progress being made in an attempt to push back on a virtual monopoly.

What are your thoughts on college athlete compensation? Do you think they are overpaid as it is, or should they receive a piece of the cash cow?