NCAA Loses At SCOTUS

[hallcity]

Unanimous opinion in NCAA v. Alston.

"...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."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-512_gfbh.pdf

This case only concerned one small part of the picture but it's a strong sign that the NCAA will have little ability to control NIL without federal legislation.

[Neals384]

Unanimous opinion in NCAA v. Alston.

"...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."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-512_gfbh.pdf

This case only concerned one small part of the picture but it's a strong sign that the NCAA will have little ability to control NIL without federal legislation.

Student-athletes may have missed a bet, as the summary says in part:

The student-athletes have not renewed their across-the-board challenge and the Court thus does not consider the
rules that remain in place.

Learned a new word today: monopsony. Many sellers, one buyer.

[Billy Dat]

I like how the Duke brand penetrated Kavanaugh's opinion:

"To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those 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. 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."

[hallcity]

I'm trying to think what the NCAA can do now. Let's say that the NCAA adopts rules in the next month saying that student-athletes can make whatever NIL deals they want except:
1) They can't engage in any NIL transactions with boosters or entities controlled by boosters;
2) Student-athletes must notify the school of any NIL deal they make so the schools can prevent boosters from getting involved;
3) Student-athletes can't use the school's name or their team uniform or any symbol associated with the university in their NIL deals;
4) Student-athletes can't wear any logo other than those approved by the school when participating in a game or other team event, such as a press conference. This includes shoes.

Would these rules pass muster with the courts? Would they be enough to protect competition -- and school shoe contracts?

[uh_no]

I'm trying to think what the NCAA can do now. Let's say that the NCAA adopts rules in the next month saying that student-athletes can make whatever NIL deals they want except:
1) They can't engage in any NIL transactions with boosters or entities controlled by boosters;
2) Student-athletes must notify the school of any NIL deal they make so the schools can prevent boosters from getting involved;
3) Student-athletes can't use the school's name or their team uniform or any symbol associated with the university in their NIL deals;
4) Student-athletes can't wear any logo other than those approved by the school when participating in a game or other team event, such as a press conference. This includes shoes.

Would these rules pass muster with the courts? Would they be enough to protect competition -- and school shoe contracts?

i imagine that would pass muster...though would need to read the entire opinion.

[MarkD83]

I like how the Duke brand penetrated Kavanaugh's opinion:

"To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those 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. 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."

I imagine lots of senators and representatives will "use" this quote (bold) in discussing minimum wages for essential workers. (If this post is too political please remove.)

[uh_no]

I'm trying to think what the NCAA can do now. Let's say that the NCAA adopts rules in the next month saying that student-athletes can make whatever NIL deals they want except:
1) They can't engage in any NIL transactions with boosters or entities controlled by boosters;
2) Student-athletes must notify the school of any NIL deal they make so the schools can prevent boosters from getting involved;
3) Student-athletes can't use the school's name or their team uniform or any symbol associated with the university in their NIL deals;
4) Student-athletes can't wear any logo other than those approved by the school when participating in a game or other team event, such as a press conference. This includes shoes.

Would these rules pass muster with the courts? Would they be enough to protect competition -- and school shoe contracts?

i imagine that would pass muster...though would need to read the entire opinion.

reading it, someone has to explain to me how NIL is an "educational related compensation"...as the decision is very narrow.

Specifically

Accordingly, as the student-athletes concede, the injunction
“does not stop the NCAA from continuing to prohibit compensation from” sneaker companies, auto dealerships,
boosters, “or anyone else.”

[tendev]

SCOTUS simply agreed with the District Court that the NCAA could not limit "educational related payments". This case does not enjoin the NCAA from prohibiting payments to athletes for athletic performance. They lost that part of their case at the District Court and did not appeal it.

The District Court "rejected the student-athletes’ challenge to NCAA rules that limit athletic scholarships to the full cost of attendance and that restrict compensation and benefits unrelated to education. " "For their part, the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined."

This case does not seem to have any impact on NIL restrictions. It simply means that colleges can pay for more "education related benefits". They will have to justify what those are and I am sure the NCAA will seek to define where the line is between "education related benefits" and payments for non-educational benefits.

[uh_no]

SCOTUS simply agreed with the District Court that the NCAA could not limit "educational related payments". This case does not enjoin the NCAA from prohibiting payments to athletes for athletic performance. They lost that part of their case at the District Court and did not appeal it.

The District Court "rejected the student-athletes’ challenge to NCAA rules that limit athletic scholarships to the full cost of attendance and that restrict compensation and benefits unrelated to education. " "For their part, the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined."

This case does not seem to have any impact on NIL restrictions. It simply means that colleges can pay for more "education related benefits". They will have to justify what those are and I am sure the NCAA will seek to define where the line is between "education related benefits" and payments for non-educational benefits.

yeah that's my reading...it's a pretty big nothingburger. The biggest outcome is the court is not willing to grant the NCAA carte-blanche to set rules as they see fit...which could lead to broader rulings for athletes in the future.

[arnie]

I like how the Duke brand penetrated Kavanaugh's opinion:

"To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those 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. 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."

By far the coolest part of the opinion.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I like how the Duke brand penetrated Kavanaugh's opinion:

"To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those 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. 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."

Sure that's not a University of New Hampshire reference?

[moonpie23]

did the have unc attorneys ?