[BostonCard]

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not a lawyer, so I would welcome correction by people who know more about this than me. As best I can tell, The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on NIL per se.  The Supreme Court (in NCAA v. Alston) has only said that the NCAA can’t place limits on educational expenses such as laptops or graduate tuition.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/in-un...rust-laws/

The ruling established that the NCAA was not immune to anti-trust law.  It affirmed a lower court ruling that said the NCAA could not restrict educational expenses, but, also held that the NCAA could restrict expenses unrelated to education.

A federal district court in California agreed in part: It ruled that the NCAA could restrict benefits that are unrelated to education (such as cash salaries), but it barred the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision, the NCAA and the athletic conferences went to the Supreme Court, which late last year agreed to take up the case.

(Emphasis mine)

However, the case that dealt with NIL (O’Bannon vs. NCAA) was decided in O’Bannon’s favor in the ninth circuit court of appeals, but the Supreme Court denied the petion to hear it, thus the ruling stands (and would apply to the Western US), but the Supreme Court has not actually ruled on NIL.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca...on-v-ncaa/

I think the fact that the Alston case was decided unanimously, plus the fact that Brett Kavenough issued a concurrence which suggested he would go further, strongly suggests that if the O’Bannon case were in front of the USSC, that they would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

[Kavenough] questioned the legality of the remaining restrictions on benefits for college athletes. He made clear that although those restrictions were not before the court in this case, Monday’s ruling established a framework for future challenges to the restrictions – and, he wrote, there are “serious questions” about whether those rules “can pass muster” under that framework.

I don’t think, however, that anyone else signed onto his concurrence, so we don’t know how the other justices feel. I will note that the Gorsuch decision stated:

Some people may think that the district court should have gone further, he suggested, while “others will think the district court went too far by undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics.” But in the end, Gorsuch emphasized, the Supreme Court agreed with the 9th Circuit that although “[t]he national debate about amateurism in college sports is important,” it is not the Supreme Court’s job to resolve it.

I have a feeling that the NCAA probably wouldn’t be able to make a blanket prohibition on NIL deals. However, if it wanted to restrict collectives, it might be able to argue that an inducement to play for a specific school would be incompatible with amateurism, thus that it has an interest in regulating NIL deals.

I think people have been quick to jump on the Alston decision. It was a major loss for the NCAA, but I don’t think it established what is and is not permitted in terms of compensating players.


BC

[BostonCard]

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not a lawyer, so I would welcome correction by people who know more about this than me. As best I can tell, The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on NIL per se.  The Supreme Court (in NCAA v. Alston) has only said that the NCAA can’t place limits on educational expenses such as laptops or graduate tuition.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/in-un...rust-laws/

The ruling established that the NCAA was not immune to anti-trust law.  It affirmed a lower court ruling that said the NCAA could not restrict educational expenses, but, also held that the NCAA could restrict expenses unrelated to education.

A federal district court in California agreed in part: It ruled that the NCAA could restrict benefits that are unrelated to education (such as cash salaries), but it barred the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision, the NCAA and the athletic conferences went to the Supreme Court, which late last year agreed to take up the case.

(Emphasis mine)

However, the case that dealt with NIL (O’Bannon vs. NCAA) was decided in O’Bannon’s favor in the ninth circuit court of appeals, but the Supreme Court denied the petion to hear it, thus the ruling stands (and would apply to the Western US), but the Supreme Court has not actually ruled on NIL.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca...on-v-ncaa/

I think the fact that the Alston case was decided unanimously, plus the fact that Brett Kavenough issued a concurrence which suggested he would go further, strongly suggests that if the O’Bannon case were in front of the USSC, that they would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

[Kavenough] questioned the legality of the remaining restrictions on benefits for college athletes. He made clear that although those restrictions were not before the court in this case, Monday’s ruling established a framework for future challenges to the restrictions – and, he wrote, there are “serious questions” about whether those rules “can pass muster” under that framework.

I don’t think, however, that anyone else signed onto his concurrence, so we don’t know how the other justices feel. I will note that the Gorsuch decision stated:

Some people may think that the district court should have gone further, he suggested, while “others will think the district court went too far by undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics.” But in the end, Gorsuch emphasized, the Supreme Court agreed with the 9th Circuit that although “[t]he national debate about amateurism in college sports is important,” it is not the Supreme Court’s job to resolve it.

I have a feeling that the NCAA probably wouldn’t be able to make a blanket prohibition on NIL deals. However, if it wanted to restrict collectives, it might be able to argue that an inducement to play for a specific school would be incompatible with amateurism, thus that it has an interest in regulating NIL deals.

I think people have been quick to jump on the Alston decision. It was a major loss for the NCAA, but I don’t think it established what is and is not permitted in terms of compensating players.


BC