Breaking News
LAST CHANCE for Cyber Monday SALE: Up to 54% off InvestingPro! Register here
Investing Pro 0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your Investing.com experience. Save up to 40% More details

U.S. Supreme Court backs college athletes in NCAA compensation fight

Stock MarketsJun 21, 2021 05:56PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
2/2 © Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Jun 11, 2021; Eugene, Oregon, USA; An NCAA logo flag at the NCAA Track and Field Championships at Hayward Field. Mandatory Credit: Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports 2/2

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out limits set by the major governing body for American intercollegiate sports on education-related benefits that schools can give players as a violation of antitrust law, handing a big victory to student-athletes fighting for greater financial compensation.

The 9-0 ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf put the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) further on the defensive as it struggles to preserve a business model - huge revenues generated by college sports and big salaries for executives and coaches while players remain unpaid - under assault on multiple fronts.

The NCAA's curbs on non-cash payments to college athletes related to education - including benefits such as computers, science equipment and musical instruments - were part of what critics have called the fiction of amateurism in college sports, an enterprise that rakes in billions of dollars annually.

These limits, according to the ruling authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, are anticompetitive under a federal law called the Sherman Antitrust Act. The ruling could pave the way for challenges to other NCAA compensation rules, a prospect that Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to invite in a separate opinion agreeing with Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh wrote that those other limits on compensation for players "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and suggested they likely would be struck down if lower courts follow the analysis laid out in Monday's ruling.

"The NCAA is not above the law," Kavanaugh added.

Although the case did not involve direct payments to athletes, the wider issue of compensation for players - also including the ability to profit off their name, image and likeness - has increasingly become a point of contention.

Several states including California have passed new laws letting students profit from their name, image and likeness rights, known as NIL. The U.S. Congress is also considering legislation on the issue.

The college athletes who filed lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 - consolidated into a single case in California federal court - argued that the NCAA's compensation limits represented a form of unlawful restraint of trade. The lead plaintiff was Shawne Alston https://wvusports.com/sports/football/roster/shawne-alston/6959, who played running back for West Virginia University's football team.

'REASONABLE RULES'

The NCAA said in a statement that the ruling gives it leeway to adopt "reasonable rules" and it can still decide the scope of what can be defined as an educational benefit.

"Even though the decision does not directly address name, image and likeness, the NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes," NCAA President Mark Emmert added.

Gorsuch noted the huge salaries drawn by the leaders of college sports.

"Those who run this enterprise profit in a different way than the student-athletes whose activities they oversee. The president of the NCAA earns nearly $4 million per year," Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch added that commissioners of the leading collegiate conferences take home between $2 to $5 million annually, college athletic directors average more than $1 million annually and top football coaches can earn nearly $11 million a year.

It is not the role of judges to decide what college sports reforms are needed, Gorsuch said, but a ruling earlier in the litigation by California-based U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken allowing education-related compensation "may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools."

Gorsuch conceded that "some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief."

Kavanaugh added, "The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes."

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the ruling reflects that college athletes should not be exploited.

Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer representing the players, said he hopes the ruling will "swing the doors open to further change, so that we can finally see a fair and competitive compensation system in which these incredible players get to benefit from the economic fruits of their labors and pursue their educational objectives."

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year deemed the NCAA's rules anticompetitive.

University at Buffalo School of Law professor Helen Drew, who specializes in sports law, said the NCAA has been slow to react to increasing demands for reform.

The case involved student-athletes who played in the highest level of college sports: NCAA Division I men's and women's basketball and those in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Football and basketball represent the major revenue-generating collegiate sports.

Joining the NCAA in defending the compensation limits were major college sports conferences including all of the big-money so-called Power Five conferences: the Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12 Conference and Pac-12 Conference.

U.S. Supreme Court backs college athletes in NCAA compensation fight
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (4)
Silence Dogood
Silence Dogood Jun 21, 2021 10:07PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
such a *****to the ivory tower universities who bilk students and sports fans alike while paying themselves 10x what they're worth. America's secondary ed system is a complete joke.. Marxists, fascists and communists selling out students and country for power and money.
Edward Lewis
Edward Lewis Jun 21, 2021 9:22PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Supreme Court wasting time on garbage cases like this while failing to take up important cases that they actually have connotational jurisdiction over? NCAA is not a government entity, it is a private entity. If the colleges do not like it, then start another association, nobody is forcing colleges to be associated with or adhere to the NCAA. Case closed.
Mamadou Sylla
Mamadou Sylla Jun 21, 2021 8:45PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Great wake up call... It was time...
Mark Jones
Mark Jones Jun 21, 2021 2:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
How is this legal or a case that the Supreme Court can even take up? If people/colleges do not like the NCAA's rules, then they can form a new governing organization for college sports. Opinion on the issue aside, the NCAA is a private entity and just because Supreme Court judges feel that college athletes should be able to get paid more - even at the expense of other college students - has nothing to do with the constitution or U.S. law. These colleges are voluntarily participating with the NCAA and their rules regarding limits to athlete compensation. Further, why is the Supreme Court wasting their time with nonsense like this while punting all the actually important cases? This whole country has become a joke, left and right.
Me comment
Me comment Jun 21, 2021 2:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
MJ you are very apparently way out of touch with how American college sports programs work. The NCAA is but a conduit through which college sports is organized. It is big business bigger than any corporation anywhere. They are the biggest monopoly in America and its actions can only be controlled by the laws and federal courts. If colleges don't play by their rules the college will be black balled and their sports programs would go bankrupt. Private companies are subject to the same Laws and Constitution as any other American company or citizen.
Don Getty
Don Getty Jun 21, 2021 2:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
in the past if a student was given a pair of sneakers by a sporting good store for a photo op - the youth  could be banned as a professional athlete - ie a pair of sneaker was payment for his time - just an example of the power the NCAA had over athletes - and the athletes had zero options - it long over due for some balance to enter student athletics - reality is if they don't adjust quickly they will lose as more and more athletic driven leagues come about ie the G league in BB
Edward Lewis
Edward Lewis Jun 21, 2021 2:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Me comment  Your response does not refute what he typed at all, if anything it confirms it.
Edward Lewis
Edward Lewis Jun 21, 2021 2:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Don Getty   If colleges are opposed to the NCAA's rules, not difficult for them to get together and start a new association. I am with Mark that this is a private sector matter that they are voluntarily engages in, no clue why the Supreme Court is involved. If colleges feel the NCAA is too powerful and they do not like their rules, then start a new association. Nothing about this needs federal government involvement.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email