The Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted an appeal from the NCAA in a case challenging restrictions on college athletes receiving compensation for playing.
The case, a combination of several disputes over compensation, concerns whether or not the NCAA’s rules against compensating students related to their education violate federal antitrust law. The league has long maintained that antitrust law allows it to impose a number of restrictions on its member institutions to preserve a sense of equity and keep the NCAA distinct from professional leagues.
The league appealed the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California upheld a lower court ruling finding it in violation of antitrust law. The lower courts left intact the league’s ability to regulate compensation not related to education.
But the league, in its filing with the Supreme Court, argued that its ability to control how colleges compensate student athletes, whether that be through a paycheck, scholarships, or some other means, is essential to the league’s character.
“The question here is whether sports organizations and other joint ventures will have the ability to define the character of their own products,” attorneys for the league wrote.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid growing calls for the NCAA to loosen up restrictions on the way in which it allows athletes to be compensated. The league in 2019 committed to allowing students to earn money from their name, image, and likeness after California passed a law requiring colleges to let college athletes earn money from endorsements.
The NCAA at the time said that it would update its rules on the matter in January 2021.
“We must embrace change,” said Michael Drake, chairman of the league’s board and president of Ohio State University.
But the league has been resistant to court intervention in its business, arguing that it would be better served by solving problems either internally or through congressional action. Writing that the 9th Circuit’s ruling, if upheld, will “fundamentally transform” the NCAA, the league warned that looser restrictions on compensation would blur “the traditional line between college and professional athletes.”
“Under the guise of applying the rule of reason, the Ninth Circuit has made itself a tool of one viewpoint in the debate: that student-athletes should have increasing and ultimately unbounded freedom to negotiate their compensation for playing college sports,” attorneys for the league wrote. “Antitrust litigation is wholly unsuited to resolving such debates.”
The court is expected to hear the case in the spring and deliver a decision by summer.
