Alston v. NCAA

[Obliviax]

This is, potentially, a game-changing court case and SCOTUS has agreed to hear it this summer. in the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding whether the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting the amount of education-related benefits that athletes could procure.​

​

In a Wednesday order (today), the court said the two cases – American Athletic Conference v. Alston, and National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – will be argued together next year, with one hour for oral arguments.​

​

In May, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from capping education-related compensation and benefits for student-athletes in Division I football and basketball programs. Division I conferences can still independently set their own rules.

In August, Justice Elena Kagan had denied the NCAA’s request to put lower court rulings in favor of the student-athletes on hold at least temporarily while the NCAA formally petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case.

​

 

[Art]

NCAA just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.

 

[bvillebaron]

NCAA just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.

You mean you don’t find Emmert to be a brilliant leader? LMAO.

 

[Art]

You mean you don’t find Emmert to be a brilliant leader? LMAO.

Maybe it's his intent to see if he can shoot himself in the foot.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

This is, potentially, a game-changing court case and SCOTUS has agreed to hear it this summer. in the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding whether the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting the amount of education-related benefits that athletes could procure.​

​

In a Wednesday order (today), the court said the two cases – American Athletic Conference v. Alston, and National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – will be argued together next year, with one hour for oral arguments.​

​

In May, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from capping education-related compensation and benefits for student-athletes in Division I football and basketball programs. Division I conferences can still independently set their own rules.

In August, Justice Elena Kagan had denied the NCAA’s request to put lower court rulings in favor of the student-athletes on hold at least temporarily while the NCAA formally petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case.

​

When they say 'education related benefits', does that include compensation for athletic participation while in school? For purposes of this case, are we talking about players cashing in on their status as college athletes? Seems a line could be drawn between 'athletic' benefits and 'education related' benefits...unless they're considered one and the same for college athletes?

 

[BudatPSU]

Anything that can hurt emmert and the ncaa is blessed good.

 

[Aardvark86]

This is, potentially, a game-changing court case and SCOTUS has agreed to hear it this summer. in the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding whether the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting the amount of education-related benefits that athletes could procure.​

​

In a Wednesday order (today), the court said the two cases – American Athletic Conference v. Alston, and National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – will be argued together next year, with one hour for oral arguments.​

​

In May, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from capping education-related compensation and benefits for student-athletes in Division I football and basketball programs. Division I conferences can still independently set their own rules.

In August, Justice Elena Kagan had denied the NCAA’s request to put lower court rulings in favor of the student-athletes on hold at least temporarily while the NCAA formally petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case.

​

Actually, inasmuch as the NCAA lost in the often-overturned Ninth Circuit, and SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, the better way of putting it might have been to suggest that it's a potential "game-staying the same" case.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

Everything liberals touch turns to shit. I do not now nor will I ever watch pro sports or athletes.

 

[BobPSU92]

Anything that can hurt emmert and the ncaa is blessed good.

Absolutely.

 

[Art]

When they say 'education related benefits', does that include compensation for athletic participation while in school? For purposes of this case, are we talking about players cashing in on their status as college athletes? Seems a line could be drawn between 'athletic' benefits and 'education related' benefits...unless they're considered one and the same for college athletes?

Therein lies the problem. Claudia Wilken, the Federal judge who first heard Alston, decided that NCAA restrictions on the compensation of athletes were violations of the anti trust laws, pretty much a no-brainer. But she lacked the courage of her convictions and further decided that, ostensibly for public policy reasons, such compensation could be limited to that associated with "education." Her decision did not put a dollar limit on compensation nor did it define what "related to education" is.

Leaves a pretty large hole. If those amounts/defintions are determined at the NCAA level, Kessler & Co will be back in court faster than BoulderFish can run a 40 and they'll win. That means that any decisions will be made at the conference or, perish the thought, school level. So where does that leave us? With Pandora's box. And once that genie is released, there is no way to put it back, pardon the mixed metaphors.