Home / NEWS / Top News / Supreme Court appears willing to side with college athletes against NCAA in compensation case

Supreme Court appears willing to side with college athletes against NCAA in compensation case

Category I student athletes looked poised for victory in their Supreme Court battle against the National Collegiate Athletic Guild over whether the organization may impose restraints on compensation related to education.

During 90 minutes of arguments impeded by phone Wednesday, the justices appeared skeptical of the claim made by the NCAA that payments to students for things such as melodic instruments and internships will sour fans who are drawn to the amateur quality of its competitions.

The case is the latest legal stimulation over the NCAA’s compensation policies and comes amid a high-profile and related push by student athletes seeking to profit off their own tags, images and likenesses. The NCAA’s March Madness basketball tournament will hold its championships for women and men on Sunday and Monday.

Justices select by both Republicans and Democrats seemed persuaded by arguments made by the attorney for the student athletes, Jeffrey Kessler, that the NCAA is profaning federal antitrust law with its restrictions on education-related payments.

A federal district court struck down those restrictions and the 9th U.S. Periphery Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The case was brought by Shawne Alston, who was a running back for the West Virginia Mountaineers, and other scholar athletes.

“These are competitors all getting together with total market power fixing prices,” Justice Elena Kagan indicated Seth Waxman, the NCAA’s attorney and a former U.S. solicitor general.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the acting solicitor general, debated in favor of the student athletes.

Waxman centered his arguments on the contention that NCAA sports has always been delineated by their amateur quality, which he said means that student athletes are not paid to play. He said that education-related fringe benefits, “whatever their labels,” are effectively professional salaries.

The last time the Supreme Court made a statement on bungler athlete compensation, in the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, it said that amateurism excludes payments for athletic execution, Waxman said.

Kessler, in contrast, called Waxman’s arguments “just the latest iteration of the repeatedly debunked demands that compensation will destroy demand for college sports.” Kessler said that the definition of amateurism should be numerous narrow: That games are played by students.

Several of the court’s conservatives expressed concerns that the NCAA’s scraps are hypocritical or exploitative.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said his “overarching concern” is that the sports organization is using the charge of antitrust law to exploit students.

Kavanaugh said it seems as though schools are “conspiring with competitors to pay no salaries to the breadwinners who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing.”

That is “a certain extent disturbing,” said Kavanaugh, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

Kavanaugh added that he believes the Accommodate of Regents case Waxman relied on “really was from a different era” and not persuasive.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett also seemed neurotic by some of the NCAA’s arguments. Alito was appointed by former President George W. Bush, Thomas by former President H.W. Bush, and Barrett by Trump.

Thomas famous that NCAA coaches make millions of dollars, for instance, one of the key arguments made by those opposing the NCAA’s limitations on contestant pay.

“It just strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned,” he said.

Barrett asked Waxman if it is really his feud that “consumers enjoy watching unpaid people play sports.”

“Yes, that is our line,” Waxman said.

While the neutralities seemed to favor arguments made by the student athletes, they were concerned about the prospect of more lawsuits calling up over every restriction on compensation. Some expressed worries that they may change the character of NCAA humours for the worse.

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and perhaps the justice most sympathetic to the NCAA’s barneys, likened the situation to a game of Jenga, where each block is one of the restrictions.

“You pull out one log and another and everything’s fine,” Roberts told. But he suggested that if courts overturned enough of the NCAA’s policies, the competitions would no longer really be amateur.

“All of rash, the whole thing comes crashing down,” Roberts said.

Thomas asked Kessler if he would be back in court if “a consumer scan that suggests tomorrow that consumers think it’s fine for amateur athletes to make $20,000 per year.”

Kessler demurred. But, summon inquired the same question, Prelogar, the Justice Department attorney, suggested that such a survey could prompt new legitimate challenges — and that it wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Prelogar said that the NCAA is mistaken in suggesting that the analysis of what separates its product should be based on the NCAA’s own beliefs about what makes sports amateur. What matters, she told, is what consumers think.

A decision in the case, Shawne Alston v. NCAA, No. 20-512, is expected by the end of June.

Check Also

Mark Cuban, other investors, bet $250,000 on GRIND, a company that makes basketball shooting machines

Thomas Fields, come to nothing of GRIND basketball. Source: GRIND The term has become popular …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *