The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the NCAA: How the Latest Decision Affects College Athletes

In the unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA, paving the way for college athletes to receive more compensation for participating in the school competition.

The ruling upholds the 2014 ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, stating that athletes can receive unlimited compensation as long as the compensation is related to education.

In decidingJudge Neil Gorsuch wrote that while others will say that the district court has not done enough to allow athletes to obtain compensation, others will say that it has done too much and it devalues ​​the benefits of being an amateur athlete. However, he stated that the Supreme Court can only uphold the decisions of the lower courts and that it acts within the scope of the law to allow athletes to obtain education-related compensation.

more: Connecticut senator tears up college football playoff expansion

But what does this mean for athletes’ progress? This is the breakdown as we know it.

What does this mean for NCAA athletes?

The Supreme Court’s decision National Collegiate Athletic Association and Alstom Athletes will now be allowed to receive education-related funds from their schools.

The lower court’s ruling stated that although there may be restrictions on the amount of compensation for student athletes outside of education, any education-related matters cannot be restricted, and that doing so would violate antitrust laws.

The ruling also found that non-cash benefits related to education may be unrestricted, including post-qualification internships.

At present, this is just opening the door to start compensating athletes. Student athletes can now receive money to pay for laptops and textbooks.

However, in the end this should lead to future challenges, namely whether NCAA athletes can be paid for participating in the game. Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote a particularly critical agreement, stating that “NCAA’s business model is completely illegal in almost all other industries in the United States” and pointed out that restaurants cannot cut the wages of chefs in a certain area because they feel that customers are more willing Eat from low-paying chefs, and other examples of collective decisions in industries to cut wages.

He continued: “Priced labor is priced labor. Priced labor is usually a textbook antitrust issue because it eliminates the free market where individuals can get fair remuneration for their work.”

According to ESPNThe plaintiff’s chief attorney and former West Virginia football player Sean Alston stated that “winning the game 9-0 is very remarkable.”

“Hopefully this will be an important next step in establishing a truly level playing field for these athletes.”

How does this affect the NIL legislation?

Although this latest decision is beneficial to athletes, it will not affect NIL legislation and ongoing discussions.

As states across the country continue to pass bills that allow athletes to profit from their names, images, and likenesses, the NCAA is cooperating with this measure. ESPN report on Friday NCAA President Mark Emmert told the school that he will pass temporary rules to allow athletes to profit from their image, and all member schools should pass their own legislation to achieve this goal.

Although this will be another source of income for athletes, but according to the latest ruling of the Supreme Court, this may not be the last one.

In a statement sent to member schools by Emmert, Acquired by The Athletic, NCAA stated that although the Supreme Court retains the lower court’s ruling, it also allows the NCAA to make its own rules on why education benefits are and what is not education benefits.

Emmert said in the statement: “Although the decision does not directly involve names, images, and portraits, the NCAA is still committed to supporting the NIL welfare of student athletes.” “In addition, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart the way forward. This is a point clearly pointed out by the Supreme Court in its ruling.”



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *