Supreme Court 9, NCAA 0

[El-Jefe]

Supreme Court Rejects NCAA’s Tight Limits on Athlete Benefits, Compensation

The high court ruled that strict limits on compensating college athletes violate U.S. antitrust law, a decision that could have broad ramifications for the future of college sports.

www.wsj.com

Snippet:

The decision doesn’t open up a world of direct, unlimited pay for college athletes, an issue that wasn’t before the court. Instead, the justices said the NCAA must allow colleges to recruit athletes by offering them additional compensation and benefits, as long as they are tied to education.

That means schools could offer compensation beyond the cost of attending college, such as scholarships for graduate or vocational schools, internships, computer equipment and study-abroad programs—and limited cash awards for athletes who do well in the classroom.

Justice Gorsuch said while the NCAA is entitled to some leeway to administer the college-sports landscape, that didn’t mean the association was entitled to de facto immunity from the Sherman Act, the central federal law barring anticompetitive conduct, just because its restrictions “happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money.”

 

[tikk10]

Oral argument went really bad for the NCAA, coupled with the fact that this case exists along a trend headed in the same direction, so the unanimity doesn't come as a huge surprise. While today's decision was limited in scope (applying to education-related compensation, such as additional scholarship money), that limited scope is only due to the plaintiffs' limited reach; Kavanaugh in concurring all but invites a new lawsuit, and Gorsuch in the majority opinion implies he'd be receptive as well ("the student-athletes have not renewed their across-the-board challenge and the Court thus does not consider the rules that remain in place”).

And the problem for the NCAA is that when that new lawsuit comes, they'll be mostly employing the same arguments that were losers here, most obviously that they're exempt from antitrust law because of an amorphous, ever-shifting definition of amateurism. Fans like "amateur sports," their argument goes, and so enforcing antitrust law would prevent the NCAA from being able to offer it, ending college sports as we know it because consumer demand would dry up if athletes were compensated. That's a tautology, not an argument, and they offered no evidence at trial, other than some interviews with cherry-picked witnesses, that it was accurate.

The opinion also hints that a big x-factor was the glaring disparity in compensation for coaches vs athletes in basketball and football, because it exposes their "joint venture" argument as a weak argument. The "joint venture" exception to antirust law exists so leagues can collude as to scheduling, rules, etc., but even in professional leagues, the pie isn't obscenely hoarded as it is between the NCAA and schools. So there'll be more litigation on this front, and I can't immediately identify where the stopping point my be for the justices.

 

[WEAREPSU_LI]

Not an expert here, so right off the bat I want to show this is just an opinion.

If we end up with schools being allowed to pay students to come to the school, not the ability to make money off their likeness, but actually pay to play type situations, I think you might actually have fans turn away. I think this really only has an effect on college football as there are literally no other sports that command the viewership and money that college football has.

I think it turns the landscape into a world where boosters raise money to offer to students to come and play and right out in the open. It'll be a powerplay on donor pockets. If that must happen to allow for players to get paid, so be it. I just think that a wild west option is going to lead to some unforeseen circumstances. Will students go where they're offered more cash, yeah probably. As silly as it sounds, I actually do think that a lot of people like the "amateur feel" to college sports. Allowing for money to flow even more freely will definitely turn some people off. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

 

[a_mshaffer]

Not an expert here, so right off the bat I want to show this is just an opinion.

If we end up with schools being allowed to pay students to come to the school, not the ability to make money off their likeness, but actually pay to play type situations, I think you might actually have fans turn away. I think this really only has an effect on college football as there are literally no other sports that command the viewership and money that college football has.

I think it turns the landscape into a world where boosters raise money to offer to students to come and play and right out in the open. It'll be a powerplay on donor pockets. If that must happen to allow for players to get paid, so be it. I just think that a wild west option is going to lead to some unforeseen circumstances. Will students go where they're offered more cash, yeah probably. As silly as it sounds, I actually do think that a lot of people like the "amateur feel" to college sports. Allowing for money to flow even more freely will definitely turn some people off. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

if boosters give their $ to players then what will the schools get (assuming they get booster $$ today)?

 

[tikk10]

Not an expert here, so right off the bat I want to show this is just an opinion.

If we end up with schools being allowed to pay students to come to the school, not the ability to make money off their likeness, but actually pay to play type situations, I think you might actually have fans turn away. I think this really only has an effect on college football as there are literally no other sports that command the viewership and money that college football has.

I think it turns the landscape into a world where boosters raise money to offer to students to come and play and right out in the open. It'll be a powerplay on donor pockets. If that must happen to allow for players to get paid, so be it. I just think that a wild west option is going to lead to some unforeseen circumstances. Will students go where they're offered more cash, yeah probably. As silly as it sounds, I actually do think that a lot of people like the "amateur feel" to college sports. Allowing for money to flow even more freely will definitely turn some people off. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Well, I doubt there are many if any SCOTUS votes to restrict the NCAA from regulating booster payments; that's an entirely different animal, and I suspect they'd find that the NCAA has a strong interest in regulating payments from just anyone.

It's not easy to see where the line is because SCOTUS pretty much cut the NCAA's foundational tenets from under them, but I suspect it's far short of D1 turning into semi-pro leagues. The court, for instance, didn't rule out that evidence that the NCAA would fundamentally and adversely changed (as both you and the NCAA speculate would be the case) by payments to athletes of the type at issue here might be compelling, only that the NCAA didn't offer any. I can guarantee you that one thing the NCAA's lawyers are probably already working on is surveys that would make that argument, and at some point along the continuum that argument will finally have teeth.

 

[WEAREPSU_LI]

Yeah I understand that the evidence wasn't offered. You would have to imagine, like you said, that they're working on something. I think I am for providing compensation to players, but like anything I think it only benefits the the health of ecosystem if there's some sort of ruleset in place for it. Interesting times.

 

[jtothemfp]

Some of our smartest (imo) take-providers have already logged in, so I'll go a different route.

The many paths forward, for each of 'college athletics', the universities, the ncaa, the coaches and the athletes are going to resemble the MCU's multiverse timelines model they've been showcasing more in the new Loki series. So many branches are about to pop off, kudos to all of you endeavoring to predict them!

 

[jtothemfp]

Oral argument went really bad for the NCAA, coupled with the fact that this case exists along a trend headed in the same direction, so the unanimity doesn't come as a huge surprise. While today's decision was limited in scope (applying to education-related compensation, such as additional scholarship money), that limited scope is only due to the plaintiffs' limited reach; Kavanaugh in concurring all but invites a new lawsuit, and Gorsuch in the majority opinion implies he'd be receptive as well ("the student-athletes have not renewed their across-the-board challenge and the Court thus does not consider the rules that remain in place”).

And the problem for the NCAA is that when that new lawsuit comes, they'll be mostly employing the same arguments that were losers here, most obviously that they're exempt from antitrust law because of an amorphous, ever-shifting definition of amateurism. Fans like "amateur sports," their argument goes, and so enforcing antitrust law would prevent the NCAA from being able to offer it, ending college sports as we know it because consumer demand would dry up if athletes were compensated. That's a tautology, not an argument, and they offered no evidence at trial, other than some interviews with cherry-picked witnesses, that it was accurate.

The opinion also hints that a big x-factor was the glaring disparity in compensation for coaches vs athletes in basketball and football, because it exposes their "joint venture" argument as a weak argument. The "joint venture" exception to antirust law exists so leagues can collude as to scheduling, rules, etc., but even in professional leagues, the pie isn't obscenely hoarded as it is between the NCAA and schools. So there'll be more litigation on this front, and I can't immediately identify where the stopping point my be for the justices.

Thanks, Tikk. That was the umpteenth time I've looked up the word tautology. I may finally now be able to stop confusing it with taxonomy.

 

[Dogwelder]

Thanks, Tikk. That was the umpteenth time I've looked up the word tautology. I may finally now be able to stop confusing it with taxonomy.

I don't even need to look it up. Tautology means buffalo. I seen Dances With Wolves. Starring Kevin Costner.

 

[midniteride]

Not an expert here, so right off the bat I want to show this is just an opinion.

If we end up with schools being allowed to pay students to come to the school, not the ability to make money off their likeness, but actually pay to play type situations, I think you might actually have fans turn away. I think this really only has an effect on college football as there are literally no other sports that command the viewership and money that college football has.

I think it turns the landscape into a world where boosters raise money to offer to students to come and play and right out in the open. It'll be a powerplay on donor pockets. If that must happen to allow for players to get paid, so be it. I just think that a wild west option is going to lead to some unforeseen circumstances. Will students go where they're offered more cash, yeah probably. As silly as it sounds, I actually do think that a lot of people like the "amateur feel" to college sports. Allowing for money to flow even more freely will definitely turn some people off. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

I agree, and will add that for a good portion of my life I followed and was emotionally invested in professional sports. That all came to a screaming end when Barry Bonds landed a 10 million dollar contract and continued to charge fans for his autograph. And obviously the greed gluttony didn't end there.

 

[Roar More]

Could this decision mean an end to scholarship limits?

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Could this decision mean an end to scholarship limits?

I am old school, constitution aside (on this one issue) I liked the concept of 'Amateur' athletics meaning you can't get paid any compensation. The Olympics haven't been the same since we have pros playing hockey, basketball, soccer, .....

Yeah yeah the communist countries got around it for years, but that is what made the miracle on ice one of the most iconic moments in Olympic sport ever

I see a day coming where the value of a full ride will pale in comparison to 'other' compensation for top 4-5 star atheletes.

The schools with the boosters with the deepest pockets will have the starting lineups all driving new escalades as freshmen. Ya think the 18 year old kids care about room, board, tuition and books?

Say you have the biggest car dealer in Alabama inviting the starting lineup to do a commercial every August that will run on local TV throughout the season. Their compensation for 'their likeness' is a leased vehicle. That scenario is nearly a no brainer, and it will be just the opening ante... Next year, new kids, new commercial, new cars.... Rinse and repeat.

Alabama vs Clemson vs tOSU vs.... was bad before. I think we will never see a national champion outside of say 6 schools max ever again.

 

[Dogwelder]

I see a day coming … the biggest car dealer in Alabama inviting the starting lineup to do a commercial …

Penn State wrestling will never lose again … by the power of Manscape dollars!

 

[dmm53]

A 9-0 decision. Almost a tech fall. Any high amplitude throws (of the Constitution) from the bench or just a few takedowns (of precedent)?

 

[PSUArnie]

Supreme Court Rejects NCAA’s Tight Limits on Athlete Benefits, Compensation

The high court ruled that strict limits on compensating college athletes violate U.S. antitrust law, a decision that could have broad ramifications for the future of college sports.

www.wsj.com

Snippet:

The decision doesn’t open up a world of direct, unlimited pay for college athletes, an issue that wasn’t before the court. Instead, the justices said the NCAA must allow colleges to recruit athletes by offering them additional compensation and benefits, as long as they are tied to education.

That means schools could offer compensation beyond the cost of attending college, such as scholarships for graduate or vocational schools, internships, computer equipment and study-abroad programs—and limited cash awards for athletes who do well in the classroom.

Justice Gorsuch said while the NCAA is entitled to some leeway to administer the college-sports landscape, that didn’t mean the association was entitled to de facto immunity from the Sherman Act, the central federal law barring anticompetitive conduct, just because its restrictions “happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money.”

Emmert will probably try to put them on probation. Dip-$hit!

 

[nerfstate]

Penn State wrestling will never lose again … by the power of Manscape dollars!

You really don’t want to mess with Big Bush.

 

[El-Jefe]

You really don’t want to mess with Big Bush.

Did @lionlover hack your account?

 

[82bordeaux]

Penn State wrestling will never lose again … by the power of Manscape dollars!

That's going down a slippery slope...

 

[82bordeaux]

You really don’t want to mess with Big Bush.

 

[baccafarmer]

Fireside chat in Indy last evening:
Power 5 Football & Basketball will break away from NCAA within a year. Loss of Final Four in BB will divert huge cash flow from NCAA to the Universities (and their players). In football, the Power 5 will have their own Tournament and it will generate enough cash to fund supplemental benefits for Football players and a REDUCED slate of other sports.
When you think about this potential scenario, .... you have to wonder how sports like Soccer, Lacrosse, Volleyball, and wrestling come out? Will the Power 5 sponsor championships in Wrestling? Will the NCAA allow its members (say: Cornell) to wrestle PSU? Will minor sports migrate down to D-II & D-III? Will most “Olympic” sports migrate to just a few new sports venues? One thing for sure, Folk style wrestling as we know it is going to change.

 

[mhs103]

Fireside chat in Indy last evening:
Power 5 Football & Basketball will break away from NCAA within a year. Loss of Final Four in BB will divert huge cash flow from NCAA to the Universities (and their players). In football, the Power 5 will have their own Tournament and it will generate enough cash to fund supplemental benefits for Football players and a REDUCED slate of other sports.
When you think about this potential scenario, .... you have to wonder how sports like Soccer, Lacrosse, Volleyball, and wrestling come out? Will the Power 5 sponsor championships in Wrestling? Will the NCAA allow its members (say: Cornell) to wrestle PSU? Will minor sports migrate down to D-II & D-III? Will most “Olympic” sports migrate to just a few new sports venues? One thing for sure, Folk style wrestling as we know it is going to change.

Granted we are entering uncharted waters and there are likely many things that we don't know that we don't know, but at this point it is difficult to see how financially strapped D1 athletic departments will have the funds to support wrestling and the other Olympic sports. This decision and the ones certain to follow do not bode well for college wrestling.

 

[Still in State College]

Granted we are entering uncharted waters and there are likely many things that we don't know that we don't know, but at this point it is difficult to see how financially strapped D1 athletic departments will have the funds to support wrestling and the other Olympic sports. This decision and the ones certain to follow do not bode well for college wrestling.

I tend to think like you on this. I think Olympic sports will start to go by the wayside even faster. If Football and Basketball can somehow manage to break away from the NCAA altogether a lot of things are going to die or at least be altered significantly from how they are today.

 

[Raw Daddy]

Not an expert here, so right off the bat I want to show this is just an opinion.

If we end up with schools being allowed to pay students to come to the school, not the ability to make money off their likeness, but actually pay to play type situations, I think you might actually have fans turn away. I think this really only has an effect on college football as there are literally no other sports that command the viewership and money that college football has.

I think it turns the landscape into a world where boosters raise money to offer to students to come and play and right out in the open. It'll be a powerplay on donor pockets. If that must happen to allow for players to get paid, so be it. I just think that a wild west option is going to lead to some unforeseen circumstances. Will students go where they're offered more cash, yeah probably. As silly as it sounds, I actually do think that a lot of people like the "amateur feel" to college sports. Allowing for money to flow even more freely will definitely turn some people off. Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

I have agreement with parts of your opinion, but not all. The digital age and profiting from moments, pictures, images and allowing that to flow to the individual is interesting (not sure the SC went as far as allowing something like this, but it’s coming). Look up NFTs. Also, the argument that football is the only one that makes money. Not for the individual. Certainly the top athletes in any sport - wrestling, gymnastics, swimming, T&F can gain wealth for themselves. This will shift the athletic landscape to even more powerhouse programs and away from middle conference athletes especially in middle tier sports. I think this will have even more monopoly type game moves by the powers that be than even before because the fakeness the NCAA and some of these universities hide behind will not need to needed.

 

[a_mshaffer]

if boosters give their $ to players then what will the schools get (assuming they get booster $$ today)?

If the schools concentrate on football, such as the big 5, will it be an ordeal if the kid even goes to school

 

[Ski]

You really don’t want to mess with Big Bush.

 

[El-Jefe]

PA passed an NIL bill:


A few thoughts from the article:

1. Athletes may now hire agents. This is probably a good thing for Olympic sports so long as the agency is limited to endorsement deals.

2. No gambling endorsements -- i.e., the slush fund continues, no direct payments from the Nittany Mall Casino.

3. "PA athletes": what happens with non-residents? For example, could an out-of-stater do a local endorsement back home that is prohibited in PA?

 

[PSU_Lion_Fan]

i Just watched an excellent podcast on Baschamania with Justin Basch, Cenzo, and Tony Ramos regarding the NIL ruling. I’m not sure how I feel about the ruling, but it certainly changes amateur/collegiate sports as we know it. I can see it becoming extremely distracting for both the student athlete and the coaching staff and universities. Literally every potential endorsement contract will have to be approved by the university’s compliance department prior to signing. It’s tough enough to juggle academics with training and competing at the highest level. Now, mix into that selling yourself, product branding, promoting, and possiblly fulfillment. I believe it was Ramos who said that the athletes should have an LLC in order to protect themselves personally from any possible litigation. If an athlete has an endorsement from say a sunglasses company, he/she must separate the endorsement from their university. Does this mean they cannot promote the sunglasses while wearing university clothing? Who will enforce compliance and what could the penalties be? On the podcast they also mentioned that potential earnings could possibly affect need-based student aid contributions for athletes coming from low income families. Certainly athletes who have endorsement contracts will want to promote the product on their social media. I know many coaches have strong feelings on their athlete‘s use of social media, especially during the season. Like I said earlier, I’m kinda on the fence regarding this ruling and it becoming a distraction to the team. It certainly is going to make coaching more difficult. Your thoughts? Fire away…..

 

[El-Jefe]

On the podcast they also mentioned that potential earnings could possibly affect need-based student aid contributions for athletes coming from low income families.

The Law of Unintended Consequences says that the NCAA will gather data to determine an avg endorsement/yr per athlete stat, which universities will apply to all athletes in order to reduce school-funded needs-based aid. This will drive more loans --> more debt.

I hope that never happens, because it would pressure athletes into monetizing. Luckily the NCAA isn't known for innovation or agility. Then again, the NCAA is known for craving money and screwing athletes, so who knows.

 

[tikk10]

i Just watched an excellent podcast on Baschamania with Justin Basch, Cenzo, and Tony Ramos regarding the NIL ruling. I’m not sure how I feel about the ruling, but it certainly changes amateur/collegiate sports as we know it. I can see it becoming extremely distracting for both the student athlete and the coaching staff and universities. Literally every potential endorsement contract will have to be approved by the university’s compliance department prior to signing. It’s tough enough to juggle academics with training and competing at the highest level. Now mix into that selling yourself, product branding, promoting, and possible fulfillment. I believe it was Ramos who said that the athletes should have an LLC in order to protect themselves personally from any possible litigation. If an athlete has an endorsement from say a sunglasses company, he/she must separate the endorsement from their university. Does this mean they cannot promote the sunglasses while wearing university clothing? Who will enforce compliance and what could the penalties be? On the podcast they also mentioned that potential earnings could possibly affect need-based student aid contributions for athletes coming from low income families. Certainly athletes who have endorsement contracts will promote the product on their social media. I know many coaches have strong feelings on their athlete‘s use of social media, especially during the season. Like I said earlier, I’m kinda on the fence regarding this ruling and it becoming a distraction to the team. It certainly is going to make coaching more difficult. Your thoughts? Fire away…..

Those are good questions you raise. I could be wrong but I've been looking at this issue all the way back in the Ed O'Bannon days when it first prominently appeared, and I think that it'll be less of an issue than is being predicted. First, I think the number of athletes who will be approached with endorsement deals requiring school approval will be small, and even smaller in non-football/basketball sports. Second, the schools' interest in segregating the athletes' deals from school activities will categorically limit the types of opportunities possible. But generally speaking, the athletes will be able to monetize their NIL are those whose NIL are already known to the public (defined regionally, of course--an Auburn middle linebacker's NIL is going to be able to sell used cars in Alabama).

Regarding the possibility that income from an endorsement deal might impact your financial aid status, that's a real issue that can only be figured out on a case by case basis. I recall back in the late 80s UNLV point guard Greg Anthony actually gave up his scholarship because he was operating a t-shirt business that exceeded the scholarship. Same thing here, you'd have to do a cost-benefit analysis and proceed accordingly.

I think, as was the case with the O'Bannon case that begat all this, the fuzziest, and possibly most lucrative area will be online and video games. Recall that EA Sports simply used O'Bannon's likeness on its cover and they didn't compensate him because they both didn't have to and couldn't. That's over. But even there, drafting a deal that worked for the athlete but excluded the school is tricky, b/c there's still no opportunity to produce a video game with all the D1 college teams and the players' NILs.

Of course, it's easy to imagine a NIL deal used as a pretext to launder an otherwise prohibited booster donation. A wealthy company owner could simply sign a deal with a player that provided that player, say, $100k for endorsing x product, all as a pretext to simply get that player $100k to come play for that school. They could even go through the motions of cutting TV ads featuring that player, to give the sham some verisimilitude. So easy to imagine that I have to believe the NCAA will be on guard for that, though I'm not sure how they'd stop it if everyone had their paperwork in order. It's not as if there's an objective threshold for a NIL's 'worthiness.'

 

[tikk10]

Another thing that will happen around this, and I'm probably not telling anyone anything they don't already know, is that every state with a serious D1 football and basketball program will be lobbied by those colleges to pass laws permitting this because colleges in states that have such laws will have a distinct advantage in recruiting top-tier talent. So there'll be a race to the bottom/top (depending on your perspective) in all states to give their colleges the coverage they need.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

PA passed an NIL bill:

View embedded media

A few thoughts from the article:

1. Athletes may now hire agents. This is probably a good thing for Olympic sports so long as the agency is limited to endorsement deals.

2. No gambling endorsements -- i.e., the slush fund continues, no direct payments from the Nittany Mall Casino.

3. "PA athletes": what happens with non-residents? For example, could an out-of-stater do a local endorsement back home that is prohibited in PA?

The big advantage Ok State thought they had with Ok being a first mover quickly fizzled out.

 

[El-Jefe]

Hilarious tweet.

Translated: NCAA voted to abide by a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.

Though "suspend" makes it sound like they intend to start enforcing it again someday.

 

[El-Jefe]

Mark Wogenrich is partly right -- NIL will almost certainly lead to multiple admin jobs at every school.

Or 20 more at Stanford.