"The Supreme Court will take up a case that could reshape college sports on Wednesday, pitting the NCAA and 11 conferences against a class of student athletes seeking compensation.

It comes as college sports raise billions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise and supporters of the students say they are being exploited and barred from the opportunity to monetize their talents.

In 2016, for example, the NCAA negotiated an eight-year extension of its broadcasting rights to March Madness, worth $1.1 billion annually.

The case thrusts the justices into the center of a debate -- for the first time since 1984 -- that is also playing out in Congress and state legislatures in an industry worth billions....

As things stand, schools are allowed to provide tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to the cost of attendance. They are permitted to make payments for certain athletic participation awards, tutoring, and study abroad expenses related to a course.

The student athletes behind the current lawsuit, led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, initially sought to eliminate all other restrictions on payment.

A district court did not go that far. It preserved limits on compensation unrelated to education, but ruled that caps on some education related benefits violate anti-trust laws.

The ruling was largely upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals although the schools are waiting for the Supreme Court to act before making any changes.

If the ruling is upheld, it will mean that the NCAA must permit student athletes to receive unlimited non-cash "education-related benefits" including post-eligibility internships.

The students can also receive annual payments up to $6,000 if they maintain academic eligibility...."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/...olitics%29

(03-31-2021 06:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Supreme Court will take up a case that could reshape college sports on Wednesday, pitting the NCAA and 11 conferences against a class of student athletes seeking compensation.

It comes as college sports raise billions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise and supporters of the students say they are being exploited and barred from the opportunity to monetize their talents.

In 2016, for example, the NCAA negotiated an eight-year extension of its broadcasting rights to March Madness, worth $1.1 billion annually.

The case thrusts the justices into the center of a debate -- for the first time since 1984 -- that is also playing out in Congress and state legislatures in an industry worth billions....

As things stand, schools are allowed to provide tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to the cost of attendance. They are permitted to make payments for certain athletic participation awards, tutoring, and study abroad expenses related to a course.

The student athletes behind the current lawsuit, led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, initially sought to eliminate all other restrictions on payment.

A district court did not go that far. It preserved limits on compensation unrelated to education, but ruled that caps on some education related benefits violate anti-trust laws.

The ruling was largely upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals although the schools are waiting for the Supreme Court to act before making any changes.

If the ruling is upheld, it will mean that the NCAA must permit student athletes to receive unlimited non-cash "education-related benefits" including post-eligibility internships.

The students can also receive annual payments up to $6,000 if they maintain academic eligibility...."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/...olitics%29

That doesn't sound as if it would have much impact compared to the current status quo. Not many athletes are going to opt for "non-cash education related benefits", and it sounds as if those would be permitted, but not required.

What happens if the ruling isn't upheld?

(03-31-2021 06:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Supreme Court will take up a case that could reshape college sports on Wednesday, pitting the NCAA and 11 conferences against a class of student athletes seeking compensation.

IIRC, this issue before the court is one of law-interpretation, not constitutionality. So a supreme court ruling wouldn't necessarily be the final word, as congress could change the laws. No?

I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

(03-31-2021 09:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

What constitutes losing if you are the NCAA? Aren't most scholarship athletes eligible to receive a stipend close to that $6,000 already?

(03-31-2021 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 09:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

What constitutes losing if you are the NCAA? Aren't most scholarship athletes eligible to receive a stipend close to that $6,000 already?

Yeah, I'm not sure there's that much at stake in this ruling, at least so long as it sticks to the parameters of what was appealed. The court could issue a broad ruling that goes beyond those issues, though.

(03-31-2021 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 09:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

What constitutes losing if you are the NCAA? Aren't most scholarship athletes eligible to receive a stipend close to that $6,000 already?

Yeah, I'm not sure there's that much at stake in this ruling, at least so long as it sticks to the parameters of what was appealed. The court could issue a broad ruling that goes beyond those issues, though.

I think it's where if Alston won- the NCAA couldn't say it's a 6000 maximum for instance. It'd become more free market. Could be a game changer.

(03-31-2021 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 09:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd say it's not looking good for the NCAA at all.

What constitutes losing if you are the NCAA? Aren't most scholarship athletes eligible to receive a stipend close to that $6,000 already?

Yeah, I'm not sure there's that much at stake in this ruling, at least so long as it sticks to the parameters of what was appealed. The court could issue a broad ruling that goes beyond those issues, though.

I think it's where if Alston won- the NCAA couldn't say it's a 6000 maximum for instance. It'd become more free market. Could be a game changer.

If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

Does that mean they think the limits are unreasonably low, or that there should be no limits at all? I can't imagine SCOTUS saying a $6K limit isn't OK but $20K is. I think they would be more likely to say that setting limits (or not) is a matter for legislation and passing the buck to Congress.

(03-31-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

Does that mean they think the limits are unreasonably low, or that there should be no limits at all? I can't imagine SCOTUS saying a $6K limit isn't OK but $20K is. I think they would be more likely to say that setting limits (or not) is a matter for legislation and passing the buck to Congress.

We will find out what they say (in writing) whenever they get around to saying it...

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

And not just the fact of their saying it but the fact of who's saying it. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are two of the more-conservative jurists on the Court. Perhaps this board is an anomaly and there's always exceptions, but at least anecdotally, conservatives seem more likely to push back against anything that challenges student-athlete amateurism, while liberals seem more likely to press it forward. If that holds on the Court, the right case could burst the dam like a nuclear warhead that detonates at the base of the Hoover.

(03-31-2021 11:50 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-31-2021 10:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If the justices' comments as reported are an accurate reflection, then the most important thing might be that they seem to think the NCAA's limitations on athlete compensation are unsustainable.

Even if that's not the direct issue in this case -- if that's what comes across in the court's ruling, it becomes an open invitation for other courts and state legislatures to dismantle the whole thing if they want to.

And not just the fact of their saying it but the fact of who's saying it. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are two of the more-conservative jurists on the Court. Perhaps this board is an anomaly and there's always exceptions, but at least anecdotally, conservatives seem more likely to push back against anything that challenges student-athlete amateurism, while liberals seem more likely to press it forward. If that holds on the Court, the right case could burst the dam like a nuclear warhead that detonates at the base of the Hoover.

Legal conservatives aren't always the same breed as regular American conservatives. They place a very high priority in their lives on ideological consistency (even if they come in different ideological flavors).

And, as someone who I forget pointed out on twitter, the SCOTUS justices are all Ivy League nerds anyway (except Barrett, who's from Notre Dame, and Breyer (STanford)). So the P5 mystique doesn't cut a lot of ice with them

I wonder whether NCAA lawyers know that they will lose almost every court case...that they are just desperately trying to mitigate the damage by narrowing the scope of the ruling.

I would say Gorsuch’s comments hit like a sack of bricks. It’s spot on, and that’s coming from a justice from whom I wouldn’t expect.

I’ll be happy if the courts just recognize the many issues that exist at major college athletic departments and student athletes. Some humbugs are going to have to shut up with that argument about what great gifts and benefits they get with these arrangements. Your SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way. That would be enough for me.

Another article, fairly in depth, examining the positions parties and effects of various outcomes of Alston.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...arguments/