The Supreme Court Sides With NCAA Athletes In A Narrow Ruling
June 21, 202110:21 AM ET
Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., May 21, 2019. (photo by Allison Shelley)
NINA TOTENBERG
The March Madness logo is shown on the court during the first half of a men's college basketball game in the first round of the NCAA tournament at Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. The Supreme Court eroded the difference between elite college athletes and professional sports stars.
Paul Sancya/AP
Faced with the prospect of reshaping college athletics, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow, but potentially transformative ruling Monday in a case that pitted college athletes against the NCAA.
At issue in the case were the NCAA rules that limit educational benefits for college players as part of their scholarships.
The athletes maintained that the NCAA has, in effect, been operating a system that is a classic restraint of competition--in short, a system that violates the nation's antitrust laws. The NCAA countered that its rules are largely exempt from the antitrust laws because they are aimed at preserving amateurism in college sports and because the rules "widen choices for consumers by distinguishing college sports from professional sports."
On Thursday, however, a unanimous court ruled that the NCAA rules are not reasonably necessary to distinguish between college and professional sports.
The NCAA "seeks immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. But added that the court declines this request because "this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control."
Amy Perko, CEO of the independent Knight Commission on Athletic Education, notes that having the conferences each establish their own limits on educational compensation would mean that there would be competition among the conferences, and an athlete who doesn't like the benefits that are offered in one conference might sign up with a school in a different conference.
Though Monday's decision is narrow, she says, it could be "transformative" in collegiate athletics. And the kinds of educational benefits that might be allowed could also be transformative. They include not just academic scholarships, but scholarships for graduate school, too, paid internships, and the elimination of caps on disability insurance so that injured athletes are guaranteed income in the future if they suffer a career-ending injury before ever being able to play professionally.
College football and basketball are in a world of trouble these days, with athletes viewed as exploited at the same time schools pay millions of dollars to coaches and spend hundreds of millions on palatial training centers, arenas, and stadiums.
Although many NCAA rules were not an issue in this case, they are increasingly an issue for the public. Take, for instance, the NCAA rules that bar athletes to earn money from their "name, image, and likeness." The NIL, as it is known, has become so unpopular that in the majority of states, legislatures either are considering or have already passed laws that ban these NIL restrictions. Indeed, in five states, those laws will go into effect July 1.
Behind the scenes in Congress, the NCAA has been scrambling to come up with a consensus on legislation that would allow athletes to control, or at least make money off. their own name, image, and likeness,
Perko says she believes that change alone will "transform" college athletics, and not just for players who are big stars. "In the modern world we live in, and that these young people live in," she observes, lesser athletes will be able to "monetize" their names via social media.
Supreme Court Ruling
Supreme Court Ruling
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Supreme Court Ruling
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... ar-behind/
Any thoughts on how this will impact Lacrosse. My first thought is the budgets for Football and Basketball will be going up at cost of other sports. Personally I think Football, and Basketball need to step up and and form there own league and stop using college as their farm system.
Any thoughts on how this will impact Lacrosse. My first thought is the budgets for Football and Basketball will be going up at cost of other sports. Personally I think Football, and Basketball need to step up and and form there own league and stop using college as their farm system.
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
There is no win in this and a NIL decision for non-revenue sports unless TV steps up to provide more $$. If fb and bb separate then the $$ follow them leaving schools to fund other sports some other way. Major changes ahead and chaos will ensue.
-
Farfromgeneva
- Posts: 23841
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
TV stepping up? Better hope Bezos, Zuckernuts & Cook feel like dropping cheddar on bringing those sports onto their digital platforms because it ain’t coming from the traditional cable sponsorship they have leaned on (meaning cable channels and their parents). Amazon may be out a year or two while digesting MGM anyways.
Harvard University, out
University of Utah, in
I am going to get a 4.0 in damage.
(Afan jealous he didn’t do this first)
University of Utah, in
I am going to get a 4.0 in damage.
(Afan jealous he didn’t do this first)
-
Farfromgeneva
- Posts: 23841
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
Creative minds within higher ed administration? Specifically when it comes to sports? This piece probably gave them the travel to landmark idea it wouldn’t have come up with on its own.
Harvard University, out
University of Utah, in
I am going to get a 4.0 in damage.
(Afan jealous he didn’t do this first)
University of Utah, in
I am going to get a 4.0 in damage.
(Afan jealous he didn’t do this first)
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27176
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
Posted this on another thread, better suited here.
Seems to me that we should see active college players at least be able to market themselves for coaching kids, including their picture in a college uniform, their bona fides as players, etc.
It's been rather ridiculous that doing so has been an NCAA violation.
BTW, how about correcting the spelling on thread title?
Seems to me that we should see active college players at least be able to market themselves for coaching kids, including their picture in a college uniform, their bona fides as players, etc.
It's been rather ridiculous that doing so has been an NCAA violation.
BTW, how about correcting the spelling on thread title?
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
Also cross-posted from the Hopkins thread:
But in practice, I think it'd be an extremely hard slog for e.g. a lax player to convince a judge that the NCAA's restrictions as to lacrosse were substantially suppressing compensation in that sport relative to what schools would otherwise be willing to pay.
(And relatively easy for the NCAA to argue the opposite: that fixing scholarship limits at a level within most member schools' means results in more non-revenue programs and more aggregate benefits to SA's than would likely exist in a more deregulated environment.)
I do agree with your larger points, though: that Monday's decision opens the way for far more extensive changes down the line, and that the NCAA would be much better off shaping those changes proactively rather than continuing to defend a clearly weakened litigating position. I was responding just to the notion that Milliman could be offering expanded benefits to recruits today if Hopkins were freed from B1G rules. Which is clearly false.
In principle, an athlete in another sport could certainly bring that case. You don't even necessarily need the revenue issue to create an antitrust hook IMO: there can be illegal price-fixing in a labor market regardless of whether the labor in question is generating economic value for the employer or is purely a consumption good.Sagittarius A* wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:53 am Based on the ruling though, isn't any sport that generates some revenue potentially open for lawsuits now? The lax Final Four makes money so potentially doesn't that open up Lax to antitrust actions? Is it possible that a student/athlete could challenge the scholarship rules for other sports now if he can show that the sport generates some revenue for the colleges or NCAA?
The other side of the coin is that after the NCAA got hammered they are less likely to want to see any more cases go up to the High Court.
What's your take on this?
But in practice, I think it'd be an extremely hard slog for e.g. a lax player to convince a judge that the NCAA's restrictions as to lacrosse were substantially suppressing compensation in that sport relative to what schools would otherwise be willing to pay.
(And relatively easy for the NCAA to argue the opposite: that fixing scholarship limits at a level within most member schools' means results in more non-revenue programs and more aggregate benefits to SA's than would likely exist in a more deregulated environment.)
I do agree with your larger points, though: that Monday's decision opens the way for far more extensive changes down the line, and that the NCAA would be much better off shaping those changes proactively rather than continuing to defend a clearly weakened litigating position. I was responding just to the notion that Milliman could be offering expanded benefits to recruits today if Hopkins were freed from B1G rules. Which is clearly false.
-
PizzaSnake
- Posts: 5356
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
I have posted this or something similar before, but hey, what's one more time. And lest someone object on the grounds this is political,I would remind them it was posted under the title of the SC ruling on remuneration of athletes. So, it is both related to athletics and politics.
Maybe, just maybe, the US system of higher education needs to separate itself from anything other than intra-mural sporting activities. While athletics and exercise are indeed salubrious, they really have grown into a monster that causes far more conflict than they are worth. I mean really, the highest court in the land has to get involved with this nonsensical debate about theft of services, or more plainly put, labor exploitation? We are not a serious country peopled by serious, thinking citizens capable of critical thought or sensible planning or policy. No, we are childish and easily distracted from the obvious threats to our country and society.
Want to play games? Go ahead, just not when you are supposed to be learning something. Get the foolishness out of your system and then go and study, because you sure are going to pay dearly for that "education" you'll receive.
"You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table to figure out how badly they’re getting forked by a system that threw them overboard 30 forking years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly sh&ttier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it," -- George Carlin
Call me a hater, and I'll call you delusional.
"Play on", if that is your raison d'etre.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child. Now that I am grown, I have put childish things from me."
Maybe, just maybe, the US system of higher education needs to separate itself from anything other than intra-mural sporting activities. While athletics and exercise are indeed salubrious, they really have grown into a monster that causes far more conflict than they are worth. I mean really, the highest court in the land has to get involved with this nonsensical debate about theft of services, or more plainly put, labor exploitation? We are not a serious country peopled by serious, thinking citizens capable of critical thought or sensible planning or policy. No, we are childish and easily distracted from the obvious threats to our country and society.
Want to play games? Go ahead, just not when you are supposed to be learning something. Get the foolishness out of your system and then go and study, because you sure are going to pay dearly for that "education" you'll receive.
"You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table to figure out how badly they’re getting forked by a system that threw them overboard 30 forking years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly sh&ttier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it," -- George Carlin
Call me a hater, and I'll call you delusional.
"Play on", if that is your raison d'etre.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child. Now that I am grown, I have put childish things from me."
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Once players start getting paid, by definition, wouldn't people within the NCAA be able to openly treat sports (e.g. lacrosse) as a business. If the PLL (in theory), can turn a profit whilst paying players, I'd imagine that NCAA D1 Men's Lacrosse would be able to do the same.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
-
PizzaSnake
- Posts: 5356
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
How the h3ll is the NCAA a 501(c)(3)?
"In late 2006, Congress challenged the NCAA’s tax-exempt status, questioning the organization’s lucrative commercial contracts and alleged lack of emphasis on higher education. [1] Some point out that Division I football and basketball are looking more like minor leagues for the pros that benefit only a tiny portion of a university’s student body and may actually be more “detrimental to the overall education of the athlete given the amount of time they consume, and so forth.”[2] Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist claims that “college sports has grown into a standard commercial enterprise — with only a tip of the hat to the academic environment they exist in.”[3] This article will first provide background to clarify the manner in which tax rules are applied to organizations such as the NCAA, an analysis on whether the NCAA is actually fulfilling its tax-exempt status, and some possible solutions for tax-exempt compliance. "
https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisbl ... pt-status/
Time to clean up the 501(c)(3) mess.
"In late 2006, Congress challenged the NCAA’s tax-exempt status, questioning the organization’s lucrative commercial contracts and alleged lack of emphasis on higher education. [1] Some point out that Division I football and basketball are looking more like minor leagues for the pros that benefit only a tiny portion of a university’s student body and may actually be more “detrimental to the overall education of the athlete given the amount of time they consume, and so forth.”[2] Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist claims that “college sports has grown into a standard commercial enterprise — with only a tip of the hat to the academic environment they exist in.”[3] This article will first provide background to clarify the manner in which tax rules are applied to organizations such as the NCAA, an analysis on whether the NCAA is actually fulfilling its tax-exempt status, and some possible solutions for tax-exempt compliance. "
https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisbl ... pt-status/
Time to clean up the 501(c)(3) mess.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
We have no idea what these kids could get in the free market....isn't that the point? They've suppressed the free market. How do we know what a school is willing to pay for a lacrosse player?
And it's more than just what the school is willing to pay. NCAA-eligible Lacrosse players are prohibited from all sorts of free market activities, like holding a lacrosse camp. Or being in a local TV that sells cars or pizzas.
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Brings up a question so can Golfers, Tennis Players, Beach Volleyball and ESports now accept prize money from Tournaments? They are not getting a salary just eating what they kill?And it's more than just what the school is willing to pay. NCAA-eligible Lacrosse players are prohibited from all sorts of free market activities, like holding a lacrosse camp. Or being in a local TV that sells cars or pizzas.
-
Essexfenwick
- Posts: 1140
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:23 pm
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Give the players a real education.
Pay them their scholarships as income. The government can tax the check. Then the players can monetize their sports value in the open market and have that taxed. Hopefully by the end they will have enough to pay their tuition and play on the team.
Boy … they would learn so much more about life and really be critical thinkers and doers after that exposure to reality.
Pay them their scholarships as income. The government can tax the check. Then the players can monetize their sports value in the open market and have that taxed. Hopefully by the end they will have enough to pay their tuition and play on the team.
Boy … they would learn so much more about life and really be critical thinkers and doers after that exposure to reality.
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
They absolutely can do that...but then they'd have to do it for every other scholarship they offer, too, even those scholarships that are just "discounts" off of the sticker price.Essexfenwick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:51 pm Give the players a real education.
Pay them their scholarships as income. The government can tax the check. Then the players can monetize their sports value in the open market and have that taxed. Hopefully by the end they will have enough to pay their tuition and play on the team.
Boy … they would learn so much more about life and really be critical thinkers and doers after that exposure to reality.
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Five Key Takeaways
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ncaa- ... s-8787107/
This ruling does not directly address pay for play or NIL (Name,Image,Likeness). However, the NCAA will be forced to start addressing many of these issues.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ncaa- ... s-8787107/
This ruling does not directly address pay for play or NIL (Name,Image,Likeness). However, the NCAA will be forced to start addressing many of these issues.
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Agreed. Where we've come so far isn't so far but is seemingly the first steps in a longer journey.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
-
44WeWantMore
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:11 pm
- Location: Too far from 21218
Re: Supreme Court Ruling
I posted something like this on the main lacrosse thread, but I think the take-away at this point is not so much the actual impact of this one decision, but, based on the reporting, the tone of the decision that should make the NCAA want to avoid further litigation at all costs.
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
-
44WeWantMore
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:11 pm
- Location: Too far from 21218
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
You summarized an entire article in one short sentence.a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:00 pmWe have no idea what these kids could get in the free market....isn't that the point? They've suppressed the free market. How do we know what a school is willing to pay for a lacrosse player?
And it's more than just what the school is willing to pay. NCAA-eligible Lacrosse players are prohibited from all sorts of free market activities, like holding a lacrosse camp. Or being in a local TV that sells cars or pizzas.
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
Re: Supreme Court Rulig
44WeWantMore wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:28 am You summarized an entire article in one short sentence.
This is America in a nutshell: Two-thirds of Americans now say they believe student athletes should be able to profit off their names and likeness. And 51 percent of those go even further, stating that they should be paid for their labor above the cost of free tuition and board.Now ask the 1/3 who don't think their fellow Americans shouldn't be able to profit off of their work, if THEY THEMSELVES should have their wages and ability to make money capped.
Anyone want to take a wild guess as to what that answer would be?