This browser does not support the Video element.
SCOTUS rules on NCAA
The U.S. Supreme Court rules 9-0 in favor of former student-athletes. What’s at stake is extra academic benefits the organization limited.
MILWAUKEE - The NCAA loses on a court of another kind. The U.S. Supreme Court rules 9-0 in favor of former student-athletes.
This case is not about whether student-athletes should receive salaries. It’s about whether NCAA rules can restrict education-related benefits.
Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid and scholarship money is limited to the cost of attending the school.
(Photo by Maddie Meyer/Getty Images)
"The NCAA still has some latitude if we take the example where someone is getting $100,000 for a summer internship, but everyone else it’s $10,000 for non-athletes, that looks like it’s not related to education. You’re really getting it because you’re an athlete, and it’s no more than disguise pay to play," said Matt Mitten, Marquette Law professor and executive director of the university's National Sports Law Institute.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX6 News app for iOS or Android
The NCAA defended the rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports. Former players said it was unfair, violating federal antitrust laws. The ruling means the NCAA can’t stop schools from sweetening their offers, but there are limits.
"If it’s a music major, you could give them a violin, but a Stradivarius violin, that probably goes beyond," said Mitten.
In the court's opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch writes: "Under the current decree, the NCAA is free to forbid in-kind benefits unrelated to a student’s actual education; nothing stops it from enforcing a ‘no Lamborghini’ rule."
Gorsuch also leaves room for other restrictions. He writes: "…individual conferences remain free to impose whatever rules they choose."
"It did say that a conference could come up with a rule, so let’s say the Big East or the Big Ten, where Marquette and Wisconsin-Madison could do it at the conference level and say we want to keep the playing field level, so to speak among our conference schools, but they have to be concerned: what if we do it but the SEC doesn’t?" said Mitten.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion went further than Gorsuch. "The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America," Kavanaugh wrote. "Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."
The NCAA reacted to the ruling. "Even though the decision does not directly address name, image and likeness, the NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes," said NCAA President Mark Emmert. "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."
The NCAA is working to amend rules that would allow an athlete to make money through sponsorships and endorsements.
Associated Press contributed to this report.