ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court to hear arguments about how colleges can reward Division I basketball and football athletes

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,829
59,434
113
The NCAA and former college athletes are getting ready to play ball at the Supreme Court.

With the March Madness basketball tournament ongoing, the high court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case about how colleges can reward athletes who play Division I basketball and football. The NCAA says if the former college students who brought the case win, it could erase the distinction between professional and college sports.

ADVERTISING


Under current NCAA rules, students can’t be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA defends its rules as necessary to preserving the amateur nature of college sports.

But if the Supreme Court sides with the former students, those caps on educational benefits could go away. If individual athletic conferences agree, schools could offer tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits for things such as postgraduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad opportunities, vocational school payments. That could create a bidding war for the best players.

The former athletes who brought the case, including former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, say the NCAA’s current rules deprive students of the ability to be rewarded for their athletic talents and hard work because most of them will never play professional sports. So far, the former players have won every round of the case. Lower courts agreed that the NCAA’s rules capping the education-related

Whatever happens at the high court, how college athletes are compensated is already likely changing. The NCAA is in the process of trying to amend its longstanding rules to allow athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. That would allow athletes to earn money for things like sponsorship deals, online endorsement and personal appearances. For some athletes, those amounts could dwarf any education-related benefits.



The former college athletes have some big-time supporters. The players associations of the NFL, NBA and WNBA are all urging the justices to side with the former athletes, as is the Biden administration.

The justices are hearing arguments by phone in the case as they have been doing for almost a year because of the coronavirus pandemic. They will almost certainly issue a decision in the case before they leave for their summer break at the end of June.

The NCAA wasn’t happy with the outcome the last time its rules were before the Supreme Court. In 1984, the high court rejected NCAA rules restricting the broadcast of college football. The justices’ ruling transformed college sports, helping it become the multibillion-dollar business it is today.

 
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday seemed highly skeptical of the NCAA’s arguments that it is protecting the integrity of amateur college athletics by opposing greater compensation for athletes, but also leery of “blowing up” the organization’s authority with long-lasting results.

“How do we know that we’re just not destroying the game as it exists?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.
The NCAA is contesting a lower-court ruling that would allow colleges to offer greater academic-related perks to Division I football and men’s and women’s basketball players, including scholarships for graduate degrees, paid postgraduate internships and computers and other types of equipment related to education.
The NCAA, under fire over amateurism, takes its fight to the Supreme Court
But in 90 minutes of arguments held via teleconference, justices across the ideological divide grilled the NCAA’s lawyer and repeated criticisms that the organization invokes its defense of amateurism as a way to increase profits while keeping its labor cost low.
AD


“The antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said.

Justice Elena Kagan was unimpressed when Washington lawyer Seth P. Waxman recounted the organization was created more than 100 years ago to “restore integrity and the social value of college athletics” against the threat of turning it into another version of professional sports.

“You can only ride on the history, I think, Mr. Waxman, for so long,” Kagan said, adding “I guess it doesn’t move me all that much that there’s a history to this if what is going on now is that competitors, as to labor, are combining to fix prices.”
Lawyers for the players and the Justice Department drew the distinction that the case was about opening educational benefits, rather than simply compensating athletes for their play.
AD


But that still worried some justices about increasing the role of the judiciary in deciding what protects amateurism and what compromises it.

“It’s like a game of Jenga,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “You’ve got this nice solid block that protects the sort of product the schools want to provide, and you pull out one log and then another and everything’s fine, then another and another and all of a sudden the whole thing … comes crashing down.”
States are free to authorize sports betting, Supreme Court rules

Justice Stephen G. Breyer worried about the court interfering with a system that has brought “joy” to millions of people.
“This is not an ordinary product … and it’s only partly economic, Breyer said, adding “So I worry a lot about judges getting into the business of deciding how amateur sports should be run.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the justice who repeated concerns about “blowing up” the NCAA.
The case is NCAA v. Alston.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_4shur
“How do we know that we’re just not destroying the game as it exists?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

I think we do know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT