Supreme Court NCAA Ruling Sets a Precedent For Greater Recognition of Student-Athlete Labor
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston) while a narrowly constructed holding, will have far-reaching effects on the relationship between student-athletes and the NCAA. Previously, under NCAA rules, colleges could only offer scholarship money up to the full cost of attendance. They couldn’t offer anything more, because to do so would complicate their status as an amateur athlete according to the NCAA.
The Supreme Court declined to see it that way. Essentially, the previous NCAA rules meant that each school could only offer up to the full cost of attendance, evening the playing field for all the schools, thus decreasing competition and, according to the student-athletes, violating antitrust laws. In his concurrent opinion, Justice Kavanaugh referred to the NCAA as “price-fixing,” a clear nod to the underlying feelings of at least some on the bench and a glimpse into how the Court might rule on subsequent issues against the NCAA in the future.
The Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the NCAA violated §1 of the Sherman Act which “prohibits “contract[s], combination[s] or conspirac[ies] in restraint of trade of commerce.” 15 U.S. C. §1. As there was no material dispute of fact, the question before the Court was whether the rules were a violation of the Sherman Act as interpreted by the district court and whether the district court applied the correct scrutiny and review to their analysis of the NCAA rules as it applied to antitrust laws.
In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch highlighted the way that these “amateur” athletes are a large revenue source for the school, raising billions of dollars in ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise, alumni donations, and of course increased attention and attraction of prospective students and families. In the original bench trial, the district court upheld some of the NCAA rules limiting athletic scholarship and compensation related to athletic performance but struck down the NCAA limits on educational benefits. On appeal to the Supreme Court, however, the student-athletes declined to continue to challenge the ruling on the scholarships tied to athletic performance, and thus the Supreme Court looked at the very narrow issue of the NCAA restriction on educational benefits to student-athletes.
In their unanimous ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled that “NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football can’t be enforced.” The Court ruled that after careful analysis it finds that relaxing the NCAA restrictions would “not blur the distinction between college and professional sports” and therefore would not entice students to play professional sports instead of becoming a student-athlete. The NCAA cited concerns that the restrictions would limit the supply of student-athletes and that the blurred professional lines would diminish the sports fans’ demand for student-athlete performances like March Madness. However, the Court ruled that reducing the restrictions would create a significantly less restrictive means of “achieving the same procompetitive benefits” as the NCAA’s previous rules. The court rejected the argument that further compensating student-athletes would make them seem more like professional athletes in the eyes of sports fans thus decreasing their appeal.
This ruling will allow different conferences to offer different incentives ranging from money for lab equipment, musical instruments, paid internships, and postgraduate study. In the negotiation and signing process, if a student-athlete does not like the offer from one school in a particular conference, it may look at other offers from other schools in a different conference thus increasing the competition and, by extension, the compensation for student-athletes who so often are the overlooked breadwinners for the college or universities.
The question of the rights of student-athletes will no doubt continue to be a question litigated in the courts over the next few years, especially as social media and personal branding become more important to Gen-Z students in real and lucrative ways. As student-athletes themselves become miniature celebrities and public figures, the relationship between their athletic performance and merit and the colleges that capitalize on their social influence and revenue needs to be critically examined. This is even more important when you think about the demographic and makeup of some of the most cherished football athletes. If we are to talk about upward mobility and decreasing the racial and socioeconomic gap in higher education, how can we be okay with the clear profiteering off of the backs of these student-athletes without proportional compensation? According to the NCAA Demographics Database, In 2021 48% of the Division I Men’s Football players were Black (49% in 2019, 48% from 2017-2018, and 47% from 2012-2016).
Credit: NCAA Demographics Database
While I understand and appreciate the need to create a bright-line distinction between amateur and professional, the truth of the matter is that these students are laborers and are not seeing even a justifiable 10% of the revenue they are driving to the colleges. They face pressures to perform well both academically and athletically, pressures to maintain a public image, and all of the other social pressures that come with independence and experiencing college life. We should be reinforcing the principle that if you work hard you should receive the fruits of your labor, and this case is the first step.