When March Madness kicked off this year, the stakes for the NCAA were higher than ever. This year, the league is playing at the Supreme Court.
The court in December accepted the league’s appeal in a case addressing what is one of the most contentious issues in college sports: player compensation. It comes after the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the NCAA rules regulating how colleges reward players violate federal antitrust laws.
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NCAA APPEAL TO CASE CHALLENGING RESTRICTIONS ON COLLEGE ATHLETE PAY
The league, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, argued that its control over compensation, whether it be through a paycheck, scholarship, or some other means, is essential to maintaining the league’s amateur character. Upholding the 9th Circuit’s ruling, attorneys for the league argued, would “fundamentally transform” the NCAA, blurring “the traditional line between college and professional athletes.”
The lawsuit comes amid a March Madness season already transformed by the coronavirus pandemic and after nationwide lockdowns canceled the tournament last year. Activists in favor of greater student compensation seized the opportunity to protest the league’s strict restrictions.
A group of students on Thursday released a statement demanding that the NCAA begin the process of allowing students to license their name, image, and likeness for promotional purposes. In addition, the group called for the Supreme Court to rule against the league.
“These players are taking a historic stand to protect the rights and freedoms of generations of players to come,” said National College Players Association Executive Director Ramogi Huma, urging people to speak out on social media against the NCAA rules during March Madness.
The Supreme Court case, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, arose out of a series of conflicts between players and the league. It came shortly after a 2019 California law requiring the league to allow students to profit off their name, image, and likeness starting in 2023. Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, and Nebraska soon followed suit, and more than 20 other states introduced legislation to do the same.
The NCAA, following the law’s passage, pushed back, seeking the enactment of legislation in Congress and rulings from courts to impose reforms while still preserving the distinction it maintains in classing players as “student-athletes.” All throughout, the league has argued that doing so maintains its character and prevents cash-rich schools from consistently dominating smaller institutions.
But at the court, a number of high-profile professional athletes have gone to bat against the NCAA. Players for the NBA, the NFL, the WNBA, and a series of other professional leagues last week filed an amicus brief accusing the NCAA’s claims of being an amateur league “meaningless.” The brief pointed out that the league allows for millions of dollars to be spent on coaches and facilities and that a greater share of those rewards should also go to players.
“In short, the NCAA’s amateurism rules impede the human flourishing of the men and women they ostensibly protect,” attorneys for the professional players wrote.
The Biden administration in early March also weighed in on the case, writing in a brief to the court that the 9th Circuit and a federal district court had correctly ruled against the NCAA before the case made it to the Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Supreme Court has weighed in on the NCAA’s disputes only several times before, notably finding in 1984 that the league’s attempted control on television rights violated antitrust law.
The case will be heard in late March, and a decision is expected in June.
