High court sides with athletes
Over NCAA rules on compensation
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that NCAA rules limiting education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships offered to college athletes — violate anti-trust laws, setting the stage for further change in how student athletes are compensated.
The case doesn’t address whether students can be paid salaries. But the ruling will help determine whether schools decide to offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits for things including tutoring, study abroad programs and graduate scholarships.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that the NCAA sought “immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws.” And he said that allowing colleges and universities to offer “enhanced education-related benefits … may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools.”
U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Lowell, a former Division 1 volleyball player, said Monday’s decision points to the need for further action by Congress.
“It’s imperative that Congress build on today’s progress by codifying college athletes’ right to monetize their (name, image and likeness) without interference from the NCAA,” Trahan said. “Then, we must go further by guaranteeing them the right to organize and collectively bargain for the compensation, safety, and playing conditions they’re owed.”
Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA had defended its rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.
As a result of the ruling, the NCAA itself can’t bar schools from sweetening their offers to Division I basketball and football players with additional educationrelated benefits. But individual athletic conferences can still set limits if they choose.
“It is our hope that this victory in the battle for college athletes’ rights will carry on a wave of justice uplifting further aspects of athlete compensation,” said Steve Berman, an attorney for the former college athletes, in a statement following the ruling. “This is the fair treatment college athletes deserve.”
NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement following the ruling that further change was inevitable.
“Even though the decision does not directly address name, image and likeness, the NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes,” he said. “Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling.”