Supreme Court Paves Way For Collegiate Athletes To Be Paid

[asu66]

Justices Call Out NCAA for Practices!

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed a ruling Monday that provides for an incremental increase in how college athletes can be compensated and also opens the door for future legal challenges that could deal a much more significant blow to the NCAA's current business model.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion, which upheld a district court judge's decision that the NCAA was violating antitrust law by placing limits on the education-related benefits that schools can provide to athletes. The decision allows schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is some way connected to their education.

Gorsuch wrote that the nation's highest court limited the scope of its decision on those education-related benefits rather than delving further into questions about the association's business model. Justice Brett Kavanaugh published a concurring opinion that takes a harder line, suggesting that the NCAA's rules that restrict any type of compensation -- including direct payment for athletic accomplishments -- might no longer hold up well in future antitrust challenges.

"The NCAA is not above the law," Kavanaugh wrote. "The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."

EDITOR'S PICKS

NCAA conference bosses eye minimalist NIL plan

Emmert tells schools to act on NIL or he will

Everything you need to know about the NCAA's NIL debate
The idea that college athletes should not be paid, a fundamental tenet of the 115-year-old NCAA, has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years. Federal antitrust lawsuits have slowly eroded strict amateurism rules during the past decade. Politicians in 19 states have passed laws in the past two years that rebuke the organization's rules and will soon allow athletes to start making money from third-party endorsements, and members of Congress are currently debating at least a half-dozen bills aimed at reforming the NCAA. Monday's ruling in the NCAA v. Alston case represents another blow during a particularly uncertain time for the future of amateurism.

"It's tremendous to win this 9-0," lead plaintiff's attorney Jeffrey Kessler told ESPN Monday morning. "Hopefully it will be the major next step on the road to a true fair competitive system for these athletes."

The Alston ruling marks the first time in more than 30 years that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the governance of college sports. In 1985, the court upheld a ruling in the NCAA v. Board of Regents of Oklahoma University case that the NCAA was breaking antitrust laws by limiting the amount of times that individual schools could appear on television. The resulting change led to an explosion in media rights revenue that has reshaped the top tier of college sports. The Regents case in 1985 found that the NCAA was illegally restricting the earning potential of individual schools. The Alston ruling this week affirms that the NCAA has been illegally restricting the earning potential of individual athletes.

Despite ruling against the NCAA in 1985, the court's opinion in that case -- written by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said the association should still be given "ample latitude" to make rules that it feels are best suited to preserve amateurism and the educational benefits that come with it. The NCAA's appeal in the Alston case argued that a judge's decision in district court unfairly stripped them of the ample latitude they need to make their own rules.

The NCAA asked the Supreme Court to review a case first filed in 2014 by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in the Alston case in 2019, determining that schools should be able to provide their athletes with educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships and even cash rewards in exchange for academic accomplishments. The NCAA's attorneys argued that these measures were "micromanaging" rules that should be determined by the NCAA's members and that the added benefits were "akin to professional salaries."

"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 said in a statement. "Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling."

Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion to underscore that while the court's ruling was narrow in this case, "the NCAA's remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks' wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks," Kavanaugh continued. "Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers' salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses' income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism' in Hollywood. Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor."

Alston and his attorneys argued that any restrictions placed on what schools can offer to their athletes as compensation were illegal. New antitrust lawsuits that raise similar arguments against the NCAA already have been filed.

Steve Berman, who was co-counsel in the Alson case, also is currently leading a lawsuit that challenges any limits the NCAA is putting on future name, image and likeness opportunities for college athletes. Berman told ESPN on Monday that his firm is considering amending its complaint to be more aggressive, asking the court to remove any restrictions on the type of compensation schools can provide to their athletes.

"In light of Justice Kavanaugh's comments, we're rethinking whether we should once again challenge pay for play," Berman said. "Kavanaugh is suggesting you should go after everything."

The NCAA has asked Congress for help in carving out a limited antitrust exemption that would protect it from some future legal claims while allowing the organization to continue to put some restrictions on how athletes can be compensated, which it says is an important step in maintaining a distinction between pro and college sports. Thus far, many members of Congress have been reticent to grant them an exception.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling highlights just how much the tide is turning against the NCAA and its unfair treatment of college athletes," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, who has been one of the association's most outspoken critics on Capitol Hill. "The status quo on 'amateurism' is finally changing and the NCAA no longer has carte blanche to control athletes' livelihoods and monopolize the market. This is the kind of justice, and basic rights, college athletes deserve."

[T-Dog]

Kavanaugh's concurrence opened the door wide open for more suits directly aimed at whether student athletes are employees. He's typically the lynchpin vote of the SCOTUS, so the NCAA is screwed in due time.

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed. Justice Thomas even asked a question!

[asu66]

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed.

I agree that the final chapter of this "thriller" has yet to be written. I worry about how this will impact mid-major collegiate athletics, in general, and App State in particular.

[t4pizza]

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed.

I agree that the final chapter of this "thriller" has yet to be written. I worry about how this will impact mid-major collegiate athletics, in general, and App State in particular.

That is a legitimate concern as most G5 schools just are not swimming in the money that will allow them to pay "full cost of education" which is really what that case was dealing with. The SEC has been doing this for several years already. And although college athletics do make a huge amount of money, most of the money is headed directly to the P5 schools. All of the G5s, FCS, DIv II and Div III schools just don't reap the financial rewards that the relative handful of schools in the P5 do and can't really afford to compensate athletes the way that public sentiment seems to think they should be compensated. It truly baffles me how a free education, housing, food, medical, tutors, priority registration from classes, and all the other perks that college athletes get is not seen as compensation in the world today. Sure I think all college kids should be able to make money from their Name, Image and Likeness but to suggest that schools should outright pay athletes is further than I am willing to go. I too worry about where this ends and what unforeseen consequences await around the corner.

[VNova]

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed.

I agree that the final chapter of this "thriller" has yet to be written. I worry about how this will impact mid-major collegiate athletics, in general, and App State in particular.

The pessimist in me says that recruiting will become an arms race, one that we can't hope to compete in if it comes down to funding the same "education packages" as similar-sized private schools with up-and-coming teams. Anyone who isn't P5 is basically SOL at this point, without rules governing it.

The optimist in me hopes that some agreement comes together very quickly on what is allowed.

[bigdaddyg]

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed.

I agree that the final chapter of this "thriller" has yet to be written. I worry about how this will impact mid-major collegiate athletics, in general, and App State in particular.

That is a legitimate concern as most G5 schools just are not swimming in the money that will allow them to pay "full cost of education" which is really what that case was dealing with. The SEC has been doing this for several years already. And although college athletics do make a huge amount of money, most of the money is headed directly to the P5 schools. All of the G5s, FCS, DIv II and Div III schools just don't reap the financial rewards that the relative handful of schools in the P5 do and can't really afford to compensate athletes the way that public sentiment seems to think they should be compensated. It truly baffles me how a free education, housing, food, medical, tutors, priority registration from classes, and all the other perks that college athletes get is not seen as compensation in the world today. Sure I think all college kids should be able to make money from their Name, Image and Likeness but to suggest that schools should outright pay athletes is further than I am willing to go. I too worry about where this ends and what unforeseen consequences await around the corner.

I completely agree with you. All of the perks you name have an intrinsic value that many of the top athletes just don’t appreciate. You can’t convert any of those things into a car, jewelry or clothes,etc. For the life of me I don’t know why the NCAA and pro leagues don’t just mutually agree to let any kid skip college and go immediately to either the NBA/G league, minor leagues for baseball or simply the NFL. If a high schooler chooses the college route he or she must stay 3 years. Any outside compensation could be put into a trust and made available after he/she leaves school.

[appdaze]

I've always thought baseball has the best infrastructure of any of the sports. Multiple levels of minor leagues to truly find out if you have what it takes to make it to the big leagues. If you choose the college route you are in it for 3 years minimum. If you choose to go directly to the minor leagues you almost immediately get paid a solid living salary. In baseball you can be a good player but never make it to the big leagues and still walk away with 6-7 figures in the bank to start the rest of your life with.


I've posted in the past that I think the future of college sports is to have an athletics program that is a separate entity from the school but uses the school logos, slogans, etc...as the representative of that college in "college" sports. The universities can still get money from the marketing/sales side of the world while the athletic organization is allowed to run like any other professional/minor league organization. Athletes could take classes at the college if they chose to do so. The team could still be run within the campus facilities. There are ways to create those types of mutual relationships between the private and public sector. If happens all the time in so many other business/research opportunities.

Any direction you shake this college sports in 20 years will look nothing like it does now.

[Gonzo]

Recruiting has always been an arms race, and one in which we've competed well compared to our REAL peers. P5 schools only have ~24 starting spots. The talent scarcity will be the same as will the the hierarchy of desired landing zones for recruits. I'm not trying to dismiss the potential negative impact this could have on App (mostly because I don't fully understand it yet), but I'm not sh*itting my pants just yet. At the end of the day this change to the law just shatters what we already knew to be an illusion. I mean it's a 9-0 opinion.

And the deluge of new lawsuits were coming even without Kavanaugh's dicta, trust me. WHEN we're allowed to pay athletes directly I wonder how this will run with Title-IX and whether the feds will force us to pay the lady athletes too. If we do attempt to "play the game" so to speak and spend more money on the football team specifically I expect this to exacerbate an already volatile relationship between faculty/admin/athletics.

Who knows. Everyone knows that college football players have been getting F%&*ED. Coaches make MILLIONS (even at our level), while unpaid workers get concussions. It's clearly the right thing to do. App Football will survive.

[VNova]

Recruiting has always been an arms race, and one in which we've competed well compared to our REAL peers. P5 schools only have ~24 starting spots. The talent scarcity will be the same as will the the hierarchy of desired landing zones for recruits. I'm not trying to dismiss the potential negative impact this could have on App (mostly because I don't fully understand it yet), but I'm not sh*itting my pants just yet. At the end of the day this change to the law just shatters what we already knew to be an illusion. I mean it's a 9-0 opinion.

And the deluge of new lawsuits were coming even without Kavanaugh's dicta, trust me. WHEN we're allowed to pay athletes directly I wonder how this will run with Title-IX and whether the feds will force us to pay the lady athletes too. If we do attempt to "play the game" so to speak and spend more money on the football team specifically I expect this to exacerbate an already volatile relationship between faculty/admin/athletics.

Who knows. Everyone knows that college football players have been getting F%&*ED. Coaches make MILLIONS (even at our level), while unpaid workers get concussions. It's clearly the right thing to do. App Football will survive.

Even with my surface level understanding of App's Football history, this is the constant I saw across all the college football changes. We tend to do well given any set of circumstances.

[Appstate88]

Recommend realigning the G5 conferences geographically. Use the savings and give it to the players as additional educational payments.

[AppWyo]

Fans want to attend games and what better way than regional conferences. Why is App so good at staying ahead of the curve?

[Rekdiver]

If I’m a P5 AD I’m colluding with other P5’s to set some limits on compensation to avoid a $race that destroys programs.

And given the comments of the SC I believe there is standing for schools to sue P5 for any number of anti-trust statutes.

[Saint3333]

Hard to disagree with the logic used by the court.

The NCAA has strayed from its goal and it will be the death of many programs across the nation.

Without professional sports level profit sharing this gets ugly quickly.

[spacemonkey]

The oral arguments on this case were amazing and it was apparent the NCAA was doomed.

I agree that the final chapter of this "thriller" has yet to be written. I worry about how this will impact mid-major collegiate athletics, in general, and App State in particular.

That is a legitimate concern as most G5 schools just are not swimming in the money that will allow them to pay "full cost of education" which is really what that case was dealing with. The SEC has been doing this for several years already. And although college athletics do make a huge amount of money, most of the money is headed directly to the P5 schools. All of the G5s, FCS, DIv II and Div III schools just don't reap the financial rewards that the relative handful of schools in the P5 do and can't really afford to compensate athletes the way that public sentiment seems to think they should be compensated. It truly baffles me how a free education, housing, food, medical, tutors, priority registration from classes, and all the other perks that college athletes get is not seen as compensation in the world today. Sure I think all college kids should be able to make money from their Name, Image and Likeness but to suggest that schools should outright pay athletes is further than I am willing to go. I too worry about where this ends and what unforeseen consequences await around the corner.

The way the universities should get around this is to pay them per hour. Every hour spent with football should be compensated. Take away their scholarship. Pay a per diem for food and hours worked, then let them pay for college. It will be a pretty bad day for them. You could also let them pay for access to the football facility and the coaches for training. They will be begging for the scholarship back. Not all....but many. I would be fine with App opting for the league that does not pay athletes. At least people would know the difference of the have and have-not that exist today. I still argue the value is in the college name. A g-league will not make as much as a collegiate football league. I love our players but they are dead to me if they are not playing or played for AppState. People pull for their connection...whatever that connection may be, not the player.

[bigdaddyg]

We already see the ridiculous Signing Day stuff with a stud player sitting at a table adorned with 5 different hats and he is also surrounded by 35 family members. The possible schools wait in anticipation for that magical moment when hopefully this amazing 18 year old chooses their beloved university to help propel them to glory. Are we now going to see a bidding war for that same kid’s services? Is the uncle going to be all over social media hyping up the stud nephew? Will some car dealership in Tuscaloosa offer some huge endorsement deal only to be trumped by Crazy Phil’s Mattress Barn in Tallahassee? Then on the morning of signing day up comes an even better offer from Bob’s Muffler Shop in Athens? Obviously this is a bit far-fetched but is it really? Are the studs going to be flashing wads of cash in front of jealous teammates who are good but not THAT good? Yeah this isn’t going to go well.

[Rekdiver]

Let em go pro outta high school and let the NFL deal with it or make it a 1 and done. See how the P5’s like that

[appstate24]

Let em go pro outta high school and let the NFL deal with it or make it a 1 and done. See how the P5’s like that

Haha! Can you imagine? I don’t care how high of a 5 star you are, imagine a 17-18 year old trying to tackle Derrick Henry at full speed or trying to block an Aaron Donald.

GO APPS!!

[fjblair]

I don't think this ruling means what some people think it means. You are not going to see college football players driving Ferraris and getting huge paychecks every month.

[Rekdiver]

I don't think this ruling means what some people think it means. You are not going to see college football players driving Ferraris and getting huge paychecks every month.

You will when they are allowed to profit off their likeness

[hapapp]

I don't think this ruling means what some people think it means. You are not going to see college football players driving Ferraris and getting huge paychecks every month.

But, it may just be the first step in that direction. One of the lawyers with the NIL case has indicated that they may go to court to seek just that in light of Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.