Supreme Court unanimous ruling against NCAA on compensation

[ArmyVet]

Game changer?

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that strict NCAA limits on compensating college athletes violate U.S. antitrust law, a decision that could have broad ramifications for the future of college sports.

The court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, upheld lower court rulings that said the NCAA unlawfully limited schools from competing for player talent by offering better benefits, to the detriment of college athletes.

The decision doesn’t open up a world of 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.

The court’s decision comes at a pivotal moment in the broader fight over athletes’ ability to be paid for their participation in the college-sports juggernaut.

[ArmyVet]

From Washington Post on the impact of ruling on high school sports and recruiting:

Verron Haynes has spent the past few weeks visiting some of the country’s top college football programs with his son, four-star running back Justice Haynes, and the pitches they’ve heard from recruiters have a new twist.

With imminent laws allowing college players to make money off their name, image and likeness, most schools are now in an arms race, hiring third-party companies to act as consultants in content creation, education and compliance — and touting just what it might do for future recruits such as Haynes.

“They all have a spin on the way they want to handle it,” said Verron Haynes, whose son holds scholarship offers from Georgia, Alabama and Florida, among others. “We’re still waiting to see all of the nuances of it. But it is happening. I do know that.”

With potential federal legislation still up in the air, six states have NIL laws going into effect July 1. In an effort to help stop that patchwork system, the NCAA governing body is expected to vote on its own national framework this month.

This potentially seismic shift at the college level has already impacted the world of recruiting, but it is also sowing confusion and stoking concern among stakeholders at the high school level, with some administrators, coaches and parents worried about the potential pitfalls the movement could have on youth sports in the future if certain regulations are not put into place.

Some believe that elite youth athletes will — and should — have the chance to make money off their NIL in the future but that it could create more opportunities for adults to exploit those athletes and create a high school landscape in which there is more pressure on kids to market themselves and less emphasis on traditional team-driven values.

“They’re kids. They’re not professional athletes yet,” said Haynes, who added that he has already had to turn away brands that want his son to be an endorser on social media. “Those are the conversations I’m having with Justice and with the schools. How are we going to protect them? … How are we going to make it about the purity of the game?”


Karissa Niehoff, the executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, the organization that writes the rules of competition for most high school sports across the country, said she is trying to protect amateurism rules that each state association has in place for athletes. In an address to the organization this year, Niehoff wrote, “High school student-athletes should not be considered the same as college student-athletes, who have opportunity for scholarships, different eligibility requirements, and different access to resources, training, compensation and exposure.”


In an interview this month, Niehoff said that while very few high school athletes probably will be able to profit from NIL, the adoption of such a system by states or the NCAA would create an unfair balance for the majority of high school athletes who won’t have the ability to benefit. She added that it would also threaten a core tenet of high school sports: the concept of the team.

Prospective high school athletes cannot accept endorsement deals if they want to maintain their collegiate eligibility under current rules, but the shift at the NCAA level could allow players to benefit through NIL deals before they set foot on campus. While state laws have been designed to stop boosters from influencing recruits through inducements, the NCAA’s proposed NIL framework reportedly supports recruits in entering NIL agreements as long as those deals are disclosed with colleges before signing with the school.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2 ... ol-sports/

[DudeAnon]

The closing statement by Justice Kavanaugh could not more perfectly encompass my thoughts on the issue.

"To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

[sju88grad]

https://www.si.com/college/2021/07/01/n ... hools-ncaa

Glad to see my alma mater on top of this…..

[Omaha1]

Generally speaking, I think student athletes have been making billions of dollars for their universities and the NCAA for a long time and I am not opposed to some sort of additional stipend or what have you, but following some of these kids on Twitter announce they are open and available to endorse any product, anywhere seems kind of ridiculous too. I mean an incoming freshman arriving on a campus in a town where almost no one knows them and they’ve never played in college feels like he should be getting endorsements? Recruiting kids now will become mostly telling them and their handlers how much money they can make from local boosters, ahem.. businesses if they choose that school. I’m not too excited about that.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

.
Background information: U.S. Supreme Court: NCAA v. Alston (2021)- HLOH thread (10 posts dated April 1, 2021 to April 24, 2021)

Today we will examine Antitrust Law insofar as it pertains to NCAA v. Alston, which is presently being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those of you with no interest in Antitrust Law are advised to discontinue reading this post. Those of you with an interest in NCAA v. Alston are advised to familiarize yourselves with the following background information summarized in three Wikipedia articles.

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984) - Wikipedia

O'Bannon v. NCAA (2014) - Wikipedia

NCAA v. Alston (2021) – Wikipedia

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



National Labor Relations Board: College athletes are employees of their schools - Nick Bromberg, Yahoo Sports - September 29, 2021

The general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board now believes that all college athletes are employees of their schools. NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo Wednesday outlining why she believes that college players are employees of their schools and afforded protections under the National Labor Relations Act. Abruzzo’s memo cites recent developments in the college sports world like the ability for players to make money off their name and image rights, the recent NCAA v. Alston Supreme Court decision and the net worth of the total compensation that players get from their schools in the form of scholarships and stipends.

From the NLRB:

Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion in Alston, went further. He strongly suggested that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also violate antitrust laws and questioned “whether the NCAA and its member colleges can continue to justify not paying student athletes a fair share” of the billions of dollars in revenue that they generate. Moreover, he suggested that one mechanism by which colleges and students could resolve the difficult questions regarding compensation is by “engaging in collective bargaining.”

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, the NCAA announced the suspension of name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) rules for Players at Academic Institutions. The NCAA did so in the face of mounting pressure, as state laws throughout the country granting NIL rights were set to take effect. Players at Academic Institutions now may collect payment for use of their name, image, and likeness, thereby opening the door for them to profit from endorsements, autograph sales, and public appearances, among other ventures. In addition, Players at Academic Institutions are permitted to use professional service providers to assist them in engaging in NIL activities. The freedom to engage in far-reaching and lucrative business enterprises makes Players at Academic Institutions much more similar to professional athletes who are employed by a team to play a sport, while simultaneously pursuing business ventures to capitalize on their fame and increase their income.

You can read the memo in full here: NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo Issues Memo on Employee Status of Players at Academic Institutions – National Labor Relations Board - September 29, 2021

Previous NLRB Decisions

What does it mean?

Abruzzo said that "she will allege that misclassifying such employees as mere 'student-athletes' and leading them to believe that they are not entitled to the Act’s protection has a chilling effect on Section 7 activity and is an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."

Simply put, any school that attempts to legally argue that athletes are not employees and are instead student-athlete will face a challenge from the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is a powerful entity and is clearly willing to go toe-to-toe with the NCAA. Will the NCAA and its schools be open to fights with the NLRB? Or will the memo pave the way for future NCAA reforms without a bunch of legal wrangling? We'll find out fairly soon.