The Supreme Court unanimously declared Monday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) cannot restrict education-related expenses to student-athletes for playing college sports.
The court voted 9-0 to reject the NCAA’s argument that protecting amateurism in college sports would be impossible if student-athletes were paid, even for education-related expenses. Limiting payments for book stipends, paid internships, and scientific equipment to student-athletes would be a violation of US antitrust law.
The outcome, which was anticipated following an oral argument in March, radically alters a system that churns out billions of dollars for universities but provides next to nothing for athletes.
“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 for student-athletes,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a scathing criticism of the NCAA’s business model.
What the Ruling Means
The case, known as National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston was originally brought by Shawne Alston, a former West Virginia running back who filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA stating the association “violated antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the value of athletic scholarships below the actual cost of attending school and ‘far below’ what the free market would produce.”
Monday’s landmark judgment is a resounding victory for Alston and all student-athletes and will result in a surge of benefits for players. Although the ruling did not address the long-pending issue of name, likeness, and image rights, the NCAA will deliberate this month on whether athletes can be compensated for their use, allowing them to be paid through endorsements and social media.
The ruling also means athletes participating in Division I basketball and Football Bowl games will receive compensation based on academic results. Colleges and universities may offer scholarship opportunities and paid internships after athletes have used up their financial aid.
The NCAA, which has through its 115-year old history defended the stance that students should play sports as amateurs, argued that such benefits might allow athletes access to luxury items. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch rescinded the argument saying it “over-reads the injunction in ways we have seen and need not belabor.”
Experts believe the decision will open the floodgates for student-athlete compensation. “It could only be a matter of time before all of the NCAA’s restrictions on compensation are struck down as antitrust violations,” the director of the sports law program at Tulane University in New Orleans, Gabe Feldman, told The New York Times.