NCAA can’t treat players like unpaid labor

The NCAA’s defense took a significant hit Monday — and that’s a good thing for college athletes.

The Supreme Court chipped away at the NCAA’s “amateurism” rules in its unanimous decision that college athletes can get more education-related benefits, such as computers or paid internships, according to RollCall.

The High Court upheld a lower court ruling that found the restriction on education-related benefits violated federal antitrust laws. And they highlighted that no one in the case questions that the NCAA has a monopoly on college sports and that its restrictions decrease compensation for athletes.

At issue is the NCAA’s notion that college athletes not be compensated because payment is what distinguishes amateur, college sports from professional sports.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cut to the chase, suggesting that more challenges to the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules could be successful. He wrote that “the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”

“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,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The NCAA is not above the law.” Amen to that.

College sports are big business. The NCAA’s broadcast contract for March Madness is a cool $1.1 billion. Football coaches rake in million-dollar salaries.

Yet student athletes, who are the ones fans buy tickets or tune in to see, are expected to play for the love of the game.

Yes, college players often receive scholarships, room and board — perks that can entice a gifted player to choose a particular university. Once there and on the team, that player is a money maker — for everyone but his or herself.

Depending on the sport, student athletes can withstand punishing injuries — some that can cut a career short before they even make a pro team. There is no worker’s comp on the field.

The debate about paying college athletes for playing has been around for decades, with opponents citing the need to uphold the “purity of the game” by keeping players off the payroll.

Purity of the game ceased when billion-dollar broadcast contracts and million-dollar salaries came into play — that toothpaste is out of the tube.

Kavanaugh raised a number of “difficult policy and practical questions that would undoubtedly ensue” if the rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules were found to violate antitrust laws — and suggested that legislation might be the answer.

Key questions: Which athletes in which sports could be compensated and what would happen to sports that don’t raise as much revenues as basketball and football?

The NCAA should be sweating, and rightly so. It has gotten away with making very big bucks without having to pay for labor for a long time. The Supreme Court’s ruling indicates a reckoning is under way.

Kavanaugh wrote that the NCAA and its member colleges maintain traditions that “have become part of the fabric of America,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“But those traditions 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.”

The debate is not over, and it will likely take legislation to establish new ground rules.

But while college sports are very much a part of the American way of life, so too is getting paid for doing your job.