Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against the NCAA, which was announced June 21, only narrowly changes the rules for how college athletes can be compensated, but it could pave the way for much more sweeping changes to college sports in the future.
While the opinion in the court’s 9-0 decision, issued by Justice Neil Gorsuch, describes the NCAA as “seeking immunity from the normal operation of antitrust laws,” it stops short of doing anything too out-of-the-ballpark — the decision upheld a lower court ruling that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting school-related compensation like scholarships and laptops that universities provide to student-athletes, meaning colleges will now be able to give athletes unlimited educational benefits.
The district court’s original decision, Gorsuch writes, “preserves considerable leeway for the NCAA, while individual conferences remain free to impose what- ever rules they choose.”
It was a concurring opinion issued by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, though, that opens the door to much larger changes, should the Supreme Court get a chance to rule on NCAA regulations that prevent student-athletes from being paid even as they bring in millions of dollars to university sports programs. In fact, Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion includes a direct shot across the NCAA’s bow in its opening paragraphs.
NCAA rules, “have historically restricted student athletes from receiving money from endorsement deals and the like,” Kavanaugh wrote. “I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under antitrust laws.”
Kavanaugh went so far as to describe the NCAA’s actions as “price-fixing labor.”
“And price-fixing labor,” Kavanaugh wrote, “is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work.”
Class action lawyer Daniel Karon said he was surprised by the 9-0 ruling, and by the vigor of Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion.
I understand he’s a big sports fan which probably helped inform that, but he went as far as I would have expected Justice Ginsburg to go if she were still on the bench,” Karon said.
He said the ruling, while narrow, “blows right open the possibility, if not the likelihood or certainty, that athletes start making money” in the future.
“It makes you wonder what that portends for the future of the NCAA,” Karon said. “If they’re not going to be able to restrict students’ experiences as they’ve done, what job does that leave them left to do other than organizing a great basketball tournament and football playoff? I mean, their vitality has been largely sapped on account of the other day’s ruling.”
The NCAA, for its part, appeared to tout the positives of the ruling, noting it reaffirms the organization’s authority to adopt what it termed “reasonable rules” and notes that the NCAA can still articulate what constitutes educational benefits.
“Even though the decision does not directly address name, image and likeness, the NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes,” said NCAA President Mark Emmert. “Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling.”
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements: