The Supreme Court on Wednesday hit the NCAA with a full-court press in a case that could decide the future of whether and how student-athletes are compensated.
Nearly every justice found fault with the league’s strict limitations on how colleges can award educational benefits as they grilled attorneys during nearly two hours of oral arguments. The case, which the court accepted in December, concerns the NCAA’s claim that the “student-athlete” status of players is threatened by an appeals court ruling that the league’s control over educational compensation violates antitrust law.
Chief Justice John Roberts set the tone for the discussion by remarking that some of the league’s practices struck him as “pay for play” schemes to keep students from going professional. Roberts speculated that the NCAA could be undermining its own claims to be an amateur sports league.
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE FUTURE OF STUDENT-ATHLETE PAY IN NCAA
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative members, jumped off of that point by hinting that there may be a double standard in how the league treats its amateur athletes because colleges do not regulate the compensation for their coaches, who often earn millions of dollars.
“You can look at the limitations of benefits or pay to players, but is there a similar focus on the compensation to coaches to maintain that distinction between amateur coaches and as opposed to coaches in the pro ranks?” Thomas asked.
Seth Waxman, an attorney for the NCAA, replied that in a previous case, a federal court had found that coaches occupied a similar role to college professors, and for that reason, the league could not regulate how much they are paid.
“It just strikes me as odd that their salaries have ballooned, but they’re still in the amateur ranks, as are the players,” Thomas replied.
Justice Samuel Alito picked up on the observation by pointing to a series of briefs filed in support of students suing the NCAA. The briefs, he said, highlighted the disparity between compensation for coaches and players, as well as the lack of a safety net for students who play sports but do not finish school.
“The argument is that they are recruited, they’re used up, and then, they’re cast aside without even a college degree,” he said. “So, they say, ‘How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?'”
Some justices, led by Elena Kagan, argued that, in effect, the NCAA was not actually an amateur league. While the league’s paeans to amateurism sound “high minded,” Kagan said, in reality, the NCAA may just be an organization that uses its undisputed market power to fix member salaries below market rates.
“Why shouldn’t we think of it in just that kind of way?” she asked. “That these are competitors, all getting together with total market power, and fixing prices?”
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh cited Kagan’s point in their questions, with Kavanaugh stating that to him, it seemed like the NCAA was using claims of amateurism as a cover to lowball student-athletes. Kavanaugh added that the league’s claim that college sports fans prefer this arrangement struck him as wrong.
“That just seems entirely circular and somewhat disturbing,” Kavanaugh said of the NCAA’s arguments.
While the court pushed hard against the NCAA, most justices were also wary of ruling against the league in a way that would wreck college sports. Referencing how college sports are incredibly popular and bring joy to millions of people, Justice Stephen Breyer said that for him, this is a “tough case.” Other justices voiced their agreement.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid out the stakes for what the court must balance when making its decision.
“On the one hand, there’s concern about blowing up the NCAA,” she said. “But then, there’s messing up general antitrust law.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The case, which was heard just as the league’s annual March Madness tournament entered its final round, attracted much attention from players and fans alike, many of whom believe that the NCAA should relax its restrictions on player compensation. As the tournament began, an association launched an initiative to raise awareness for players’ causes.
As the court weighs the case, several states, including California, Colorado, and Nebraska, have passed laws that would outlaw the league’s current amateurism rules. The court is expected to decide the case by summer.
