Supreme Court rules against NCAA restrictions on colleges offering educational perks to compensate student-athletes

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against the NCAA's limits on education-related perks for college athletes, upholding a lower court's decision that was one of the most important in the movement to increase compensation for student-athletes.

In a 9-0 vote, the court rejected the National Collegiate Athletic Association's argument that its rules limiting such educational benefits were necessary to preserve the image of amateurism in college sports.

The organization was contesting a lower-court ruling that would allow colleges to offer greater academic-related perks to Division I football and men's and women's basketball players — benefits such as scholarships for graduate degrees, paid postgraduate internships, and providing computers, musical instruments and other types of equipment related to education free of charge.

The case is a long-running antitrust lawsuit filed by former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston and former University of California center Justine Hartman, representing a class of former men's and women's college athletes.

It is not directly related to the debate surrounding name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation that is taking place in Congress and state capitals across the country, nor does it address uncapped payment for athletes' on-field prowess.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken agreed with the organization about direct compensation. But she said enhanced education benefits were fair game, even though the NCAA said it would set up a bidding war between universities and athletic conferences for top athletes.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the court, said Wilken had carefully examined the NCAA's arguments and found them lacking as to why the organization should be spared from the normal rigor of antitrust litigation.

The lower court's decision "stands on firm ground — an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful legal analysis consistent with established antitrust principles, and a healthy dose of judicial humility," Gorsuch wrote.

One justice went further, and said in a concurring opinion that the NCAA is going to have trouble in the future defending its policy that athletes should not be compensated.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said tradition alone "cannot justify the NCAA's decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate."

He added: "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

The NCAA's lawyer told the Supreme Court during oral arguments that the decision, upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, approves "a regime that permits athletes to be paid thousands of dollars each year just for playing on a team and unlimited cash for post-eligibility internships."

A lawyer for the players said courts have taken note of the NCAA's unique role, but still ruled against them on the facts.

He said the case was "just the latest iteration of the repeatedly debunked claims that competition will destroy consumer demand for college sports and that the NCAA should have a judicially created antitrust exemption."

The Biden administration sided with the players, saying the lower court decision was carefully crafted to allow only payments related to education.

The case is NCAA v. Alston.