> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Sports and Money
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

In Unanimous Ruling, Supreme Court Takes Aim at NCAA’s ‘Amateurism’ Model

By  Eric Kelderman
June 21, 2021
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA - APRIL 04: President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Mark Emmert speaks to the media ahead of the Men’s Final Four at U.S. Bank Stadium on April 04, 2019 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Maxx Wolfson/Getty Images)
Maxx Wolfson, Getty Images
Under its president, Mark Emmert, the NCAA has argued that prohibiting benefits for athletes is necessary to keep wealthy colleges from gaining an unfair recruiting advantage.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that limits on education-related benefits for college athletes violate federal antitrust laws. The opinion, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, is seen as a victory for athletes’ rights and a strong rebuke of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s argument that increasing benefits for athletes will undermine what it says is the enterprise’s signature appeal — that its athletes are considered unpaid amateurs.

The case, NCAA v. Alston, No. 20–512, considered whether the association had the authority to limit scholarships to the cost of attendance and to bar colleges from providing any additional compensation or benefits, even if they were related to an athlete’s education. The federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that scholarships and direct compensation could continue to be limited but that education-related benefits could be as much as $5,980 — the amount that the NCAA allows colleges to award athletes for their sports achievements.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that limits on education-related benefits for college athletes violate federal antitrust laws. The opinion, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, is seen as a victory for athletes’ rights and a strong rebuke of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s argument that increasing benefits for athletes will undermine what it says is the enterprise’s signature appeal — that its athletes are considered unpaid amateurs.

The case, NCAA v. Alston, No. 20–512, considered whether the association had the authority to limit scholarships to the cost of attendance and to bar colleges from providing any additional compensation or benefits, even if they were related to an athlete’s education. The federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that scholarships and direct compensation could continue to be limited but that education-related benefits could be as much as $5,980 — the amount that the NCAA allows colleges to award athletes for their sports achievements.

The NCAA has argued that a ban on such benefits was necessary to preserve “amateurism” in college sports and to prevent wealthy colleges and athletics boosters from gaining an unfair advantage in recruiting athletes. But Gorsuch questioned the very premise of amateurism in the first paragraph of his opinion, writing that the lucrative enterprise of college sports “relies on ‘amateur’ student-athletes who compete under horizontal restraints that restrict how the schools may compensate them for their play.”

Dionne L. Koller, director of the Center for Sport and the Law, at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said that the NCAA has argued for decades that it was the creator and protector of a “magical model” of college sports that would be sullied by compensating athletes in any way. “It’s nice to see the court not falling for that,” Koller said.

ADVERTISEMENT

The justices also weren’t swayed by the argument that limits were necessary to preserve an even playing field, said Helen Drew, director of the Center for the Advancement of Sport, at the University at Buffalo School of Law. If the NCAA and colleges really believed that, they could put restrictions on coaches’ salaries, she said, “but that hasn’t happened.”

Martin D. Edel, chair of the college-sports-law practice at the law firm Goulston & Storrs, said that although the ruling is a win for some college athletes, it is relatively narrow. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, the limits on scholarships and direct compensation remain, but the justices removed the limit on education-related benefits.

The court’s opinion also leaves lots of unanswered questions, including who will define what “education-related” means. For example, it’s clear that colleges can give athletes a computer, Edel said, but it’s not clear if providing training to use that computer would also be acceptable.

In a news release, the NCAA said that the decision “notes that the NCAA remains free to articulate what are and are not truly educational benefits, consistent with the NCAA’s mission to support student-athletes.”

Edel said that if the NCAA or athletics conferences set those definitions, they could still be at risk of violating antitrust laws. The association would be better off providing a guide for things that did not fit educational benefits rather than trying to narrowly restrict everything that would be acceptable, he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

There are also potential tax issues for colleges and athletes, depending on who or what entity pays for the benefits. If a college provides the money, it could be giving athletes a form of compensation that would qualify them as employees, Edel said. If an athletics booster pays for the benefit, such as an internship or job training, it’s not clear who would ensure the legitimacy of that training, he said.

For some advocates of increasing athletes’ rights, Monday’s ruling didn’t go far enough. “This is a good first step,” said Eddie Comeaux, executive director of the Center for Athletes’ Rights and Equity, at the University of California at Riverside.

Comeaux said the ruling, especially with the scathing concurrence from Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, could open the door — through more legal challenges or legislation — to actually sharing the money generated by college sports with the athletes who attract the fans and television contracts.

“How do we ensure that athletes are fairly compensated for their labor?” Comeaux asked. “I think there’s a way we can do it and maintain a distinction with professional sports. We certainly need to reimagine the model of college sports.”

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
AthleticsFinance & Operations
Eric Kelderman
Eric Kelderman covers issues of power, politics, and purse strings in higher education. You can email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com, or find him on Twitter @etkeld.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin