Supreme Court’s warning to NCAA over student-athlete is a welcome first step
The U.S. Supreme Court put the NCAA on notice Monday that it may need a new business model that doesn’t exploit college athletes for financial gain. It’s a good first step in righting the injustices student players have endured for more than a century, but it doesn’t go far enough.
The high court’s ruling expands the types of education-related benefits athletes can be given as compensation. Schools will now be able to offer athletes perks like paid internships, postgraduate scholarships and equipment such as computers and musical instruments free of charge.
While the case didn’t address the bigger question of whether to directly pay student-athletes or whether they can earn money off their names, images and likenesses, the ruling sent a welcome signal that the NCAA’S days of monopolistic, unfettered control over players may be over.
The court also signaled a willingness to hear additional legal challenges to NCAA practices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, accused the NCAA of “price fixing.” “The NCAA is not above the law,” he wrote. “The NCA A’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”
Kavanaugh is right. Monday’s ruling should be just the start. College athletes help generate more than $1 billion a year for the NCAA, but a 2019 study by the National College Players Association found that 86% of those athletes live below the poverty line. Because of their commitments to maintain their grades and practice time, they don’t have time to make money from a job.
Only 2% of college athletes go on to play professionally. And when a college athlete is injured, coaches routinely drop their scholarships, leaving the athletes and their parents to pay for medical expenses.
Former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston and former UC Berkeley basketball center Justine Hartman sued the NCAA, arguing that the institution’s rules on education-related compensation were unfair and violated federal antitrust law. The NCAA, which caps scholarship money at the cost of attending a school, claimed it needed to preserve its rules to protect the amateur nature of college sports.
That’s a hoot. If that were true, why does the NCAA have a different set of compensation rules for college athletes who compete in the Olympics? Those athletes get to spend more time working with their college coaches without breaking NCAA rules. They also get expenses paid for their parents, coaches and trainers.
The issue is about far more than just education-related payments. Fortunately, legislators in nearly 20 states, including California, are challenging the NCAA’S 115-yearold rule against compensating athletes.
In 2019, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into a law a measure by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-berkeley, that would allow players starting in 2023 to receive endorsement deals. The Legislature is now considering another bill from Skinner that would make the law effective immediately, given that Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and New Mexico all have approved similar laws that become effective July 1.
College athletes should be compensated for their performances on fields and in arenas. Colleges and universities pay millions of dollars to coaches yet maintain the fiction that the integrity of the college game depends on the players remaining amateurs.
This issue is all about money. Give the players their fair share.