National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston

Last updated

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston
American Athletic Conference v. Alston
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 31, 2021
Decided June 21, 2021
Full case nameNational Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shawne Alston, et al.
American Athletic Conference, et al. v. Shawne Alston, et al.
Docket nos. 20-512
20-520
Citations594 U.S. ___ ( more )
141 S. Ct. 2141
210 L. Ed. 2d 314
Case history
Prior
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
Laws applied
Sherman Act

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the compensation of collegiate athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon v. NCAA , in which it was found that the NCAA was profiting from the namesake and likenesses of college athletes. The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling in June 2021.

Contents

Background

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) oversees rules related to student athletes that play in their athletics programs. These athletic programs are generally seen as revenue generation for the individual school, particularly for the popular college football and basketball programs which are widely televised and marketed. Because the school benefits from the performance of the players, the NCAA had established rules to limit the type of compensation that the school could give to student athletes as to distinguish college athletics from professional sports. This had included disallowing "non-cash education-related benefits" such as scholarships and internships so that there is no apparent "pay to play" aspects. [1]

In 2014, a class-action lawsuit O'Bannon v. NCAA was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, numerous college athletes, asserted that the NCAA and its colleges were profiting off their names and likeness in works related to the college athletic programs such as in video games but none of the athletes were receiving any compensation for that pay, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. District Court judge Claudia Ann Wilken found for the plaintiffs, [2] [3] a decision upheld in part by the Ninth Circuit. [4] In review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the NCAA agreed to allow student athletes to receive full scholarships for academics. Subsequently, the NCAA had started review of its policies related to how to compensate players for names and likenesses, as well as the impact of California's Fair Pay to Play Act passed in October 2019 and due for enforcement in 2023 which would allow students to have more control on their names and likenesses for sponsorships and endorsements beyond the NCAA's control. [5]

Subsequent to O'Bannon, a number of additional lawsuits challenging the NCAA's restrictions on educational compensation for athletes were raised, led by Shawne Alston and Justine Hartman. The cases were combined into NCAA v. Alston at the Northern District Court of California. Judge Wilken, also hearing this case, issued her decision in March 2019, ruling against the NCAA that their restrictions on "non-cash education-related benefits" violated antitrust law under the Sherman Antitrust Act and required the NCAA to allow for certain types of academic benefits beyond the previously-established full scholarships from O'Bannon, such as for "computers, science equipment, musical instruments and other tangible items not included in the cost of attendance calculation but nonetheless related to the pursuit of academic studies". [6] The ruling barred the NCAA from preventing athletes from receiving "post-eligibility scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school; scholarships to attend vocational school; tutoring; expenses related to studying abroad that are not included in the cost of attendance calculation; and paid post-eligibility internships". Wilken's ruling also established that the conferences within the NCAA may set other allowances. The NCAA may still limit cash or cash-equivalent awards for academic purposes under the ruling. Wilken rationalized her ruling bases on the large differences in compensation that the NCAA receives from the student athletes' performance to what the students themselves receive. [3] Wilken's ruling did not limit what individual athletic conferences may restrict in terms of compensation. [7]

The NCAA appealed Wilken's ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled in May 2020 to uphold the District Court's decision. [8] The panel did agree that the NCAA had a necessary interest in "preserving amateurism and thus improving consumer choice by maintaining a distinction between college and professional sports", but their practices still violated antitrust law. Judge Milan Smith wrote "The treatment of Student-Athletes is not the result of free market competition. To the contrary, it is the result of a cartel of buyers acting in concert to artificially depress the price that sellers could otherwise receive for their services. Our antitrust laws were originally meant to prohibit exactly this sort of distortion." [5]

Supreme Court

The upheld decision went into effect in August 2020, though the NCAA had sought an emergency request to hold the injunction prior to that. The NCAA along with the American Athletic Conference filed petitions to the Supreme Court in October 2020 to hear their appeal. Both asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision, arguing that the decision created a new definition of items that could be "related to education" which could be abused by colleges and sponsors to create effective "pay for play" programs in all but name, such as a hypothetical US$500,000-a-semester "internship" with Nike that the NCAA described as "the antithesis of amateurism". [9] The Supreme Court granted certiorari to both petitions in December 2020, consolidating the two petitions into NCAA v. Alston. [1]

Oral arguments were heard on March 31, 2021, with observers stating that the Justices in general appeared to agree with arguments made by the students against the NCAA regulations but expressed concern about the potential effects of weakening the NCAA's objective of maintaining the appearance of amateur play within their leagues. [10]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 21, 2021. The decision was unanimous, affirming the Ninth Circuit's ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the opinion. [11] Gorsuch wrote that the lower courts' decision is consistent with established antitrust principles, and thus the Court upheld the ruling, but did not attempt to make any judgment on the aspect related to whether student athletes should receive further pay as this was beyond the remit of the court. [12] Gorsuch acknowledged that "some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief" in addressing the apparent discrepancy of compensation between student athletes and the coaches and administrators of the NCAA. [13]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, stating that antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes." [14] Kavanaugh's opinion also spoke to other NCAA regulations that he believed "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and would be struck down if challenged under the same legal principles used by the lower courts in Alston. [13]

This ruling only concerned education-related payments and did not address restrictions on direct compensation payment to athletes. However, it also opened the door for the possibility of future court cases concerning this matter. [13] [15] [16]

The changes from this court decision will cause many NCAA-affiliated athletic departments to adapt accordingly. A large part of this responsibility will be to keep the standard of Title IX as new opportunities for athletes to receive compensation appear. The title disallows sex-based discrimination and calls for equal opportunity for student-athletes. "For example, if a school allows its male basketball players to make money from their NIL, they must also allow female athletes to do the same." [17]

The decision was filed at a time as several states were on the verge of passing laws to give student athletes more control over the use of their likeness, and the U.S. Congress had been mulling legislation to provide better compensation for student athletes after years of inaction by the NCAA. With the decision, passage of laws to help improve collegiate athlete compensation are expected to be accelerated if the NCAA does not take quick actions to remedy from the ruling. [15] President Joe Biden stated that he "believes that everyone should be compensated fairly for his or her labor", [15] while Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell said the ruling gave "new urgency" to their legislative efforts. [15] The NCAA's then-president Mark Emmert said that the ruling affirms the association's efforts to qualify what counts as educational benefits, and that "we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling." [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Collegiate Athletic Association</span> American collegiate athletic organization

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and one in Canada. It also organizes the athletic programs of colleges and helps over 500,000 college student athletes who compete annually in college sports. The organization is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics</span> North American college athletics association

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) established in 1940, is a college athletics association for colleges and universities in North America. Most colleges and universities in the NAIA offer athletic scholarships to their student athletes. $1.3 billion in athletic scholarship financial aid is awarded to student athletes annually. For the 2023–24 season, it had 241 member institutions, of which two are in British Columbia, one in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the rest in the continental United States, with over 83,000 student-athletes participating. The NAIA, whose headquarters is in Kansas City, Missouri, sponsors 28 national championships. CBS Sports Network, formerly called CSTV, serves as the national media outlet for the NAIA. In 2014, ESPNU began carrying the NAIA Football National Championship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">College athletics in the United States</span> Component of American higher education

College athletics in the United States or college sports in the United States refers primarily to sports and athletic training and competition organized and funded by institutions of tertiary education in a two-tiered system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith, Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and he considers himself to be a political independent.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NCAA's receipt of dues payments from colleges and universities which received federal funds, was not sufficient to subject the NCAA to a lawsuit under Title IX.

Sports law in the United States overlaps substantially with labor law, contract law, competition or antitrust law, and tort law. Issues like defamation and privacy rights are also integral aspects of sports law. This area of law was established as a separate and important entity only a few decades ago, coinciding with the rise of player-agents and increased media scrutiny of sports law topics.

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that preserved the reserve clause in Major League Baseball (MLB) players' contracts. By a 5–3 margin, the Court reaffirmed the antitrust exemption that had been granted to professional baseball in 1922 under Federal Baseball Club v. National League, and previously affirmed by Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. in 1953. While the majority believed that baseball's antitrust exemption was anomalous compared to other professional sports, it held that any changes to the exemption should be made through Congress and not the courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ed O'Bannon</span> American basketball player (born 1972)

Edward Charles O'Bannon Jr. is an American former professional basketball player in the National Basketball Association (NBA). He was a power forward for the UCLA Bruins on their 1995 NCAA championship team. He was selected by the New Jersey Nets with the ninth overall pick of the 1995 NBA draft. After two seasons in the NBA, he continued his professional career for another eight years, mainly playing in Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Claudia Ann Wilken</span> American judge (born 1949)

Claudia Ann Wilken is a senior United States District Court Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Frederick</span>

David Charles Frederick is an appellate attorney in Washington, D.C., and is a name partner at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick He has argued over 50 cases before the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey L. Kessler is a partner at the international law firm Winston & Strawn, where he also serves as Co-Executive Chairman and co-chair of the firm's antitrust/competition practice and is a member of the firm's executive committee. Until May 2012, he was the global litigation chair at the international law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, where he was also the co-chair of the sports litigation practice group and served on the firm's executive and leadership committees. His major clients include the Panasonic Corporation, National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), William Morris Endeavor, Activision Blizzard, Avanci, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), United States Women's National Team (USWNT) soccer players, NTN Corporation, Relevant Sports, and Actors' Equity Association.

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, which were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade.

<i>OBannon v. NCAA</i> 2015 US federal appeals court case

O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049, was an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The lawsuit, which former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed on behalf of the NCAA's Division I football and men's basketball players, challenged the organization's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes. The suit argued that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The NCAA maintained that paying its athletes would be a violation of its concept of amateurism in sports. At stake are "billions of dollars in television revenues and licensing fees."

The definition of amateurism within the context of collegiate sports has evolved since it was first pronounced by the NCAA upon its inception in 1906. In its early stages, changes in the NCAA's core beliefs in what a student-athlete should be rewarded and allowed to accept financially for their athletic talents had its effects on the definition of amateurism. Over the course of the 20th and early 21st century, regulatory changes, court claims, and the beliefs of NCAA authority about student-athlete compensation further developed what an amateur collegiate athlete is entitled to receive. This evolution is what impacted the evolving logistics of the NCAA Bylaw 12, which explains the current definition of amateurism and what it grants or restricts a collegiate athlete to be able to receive as compensation for their participation. These guidelines have been described to both benefit and unjustifiably limit the student-athlete and the success of institutions’ athletic performance. This debate has been a strong driver in court claims against the NCAA and the mainstream controversy about what student-athletes should have the right to receive financially.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

The Fair Pay to Play Act, originally known as California Senate Bill 206, is a California statute that will allow collegiate athletes to acquire endorsements and sponsorships while still maintaining athletic eligibility. The bill would affect college athletes in California's public universities and colleges.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

In college athletics in the United States, a student-athlete who participates in a varsity sport on any and all levels is eligible to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Historically, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) was the first association to permit pro-am, as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) resisted efforts to compensate college athletes beyond the scholarship and stipend. However, the Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021) allows for non-scholarship earned income across every division.

EA Sports College Football 25 is an upcoming video game based on college football developed by EA Orlando and published by EA Sports. It will be released in summer 2024 as the twenty-first game in the EA Sports College Football game series and the first such game since the July 2013 release of NCAA Football 14.

Hendricks v. Clemson University, 4. S.C. Code Ann. 15-78-60(25), was a negligence case against Clemson University that was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The plaintiff, a student-athlete named R.J. Hendricks, was ruled ineligible to play baseball within the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) at the NCAA Division I level based on erroneous athletic academic advising.

References

  1. 1 2 Barnes, Robert; Maese, Rick (December 16, 2020). "Supreme Court will hear NCAA dispute over compensation for student-athletes". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 16, 2020.
  2. ↑ O'Bannon v. NCAA , 7F. Supp. 3d955 , 1009( N.D. Cal. 2014).
  3. 1 2 McCann, Michael (March 8, 2019). "Why the NCAA Lost Its Latest Landmark Case in the Battle Over What Schools Can Offer Athletes". Sports Illustrated . Retrieved December 16, 2020.
  4. ↑ O'Bannon v. NCAA , 802F.3d1049 ( 9th Cir. 2015).
  5. 1 2 Anderson, Greta (May 19, 2020). "Court Panel Rules Against NCAA Restrictions on Athlete Pay". Inside Higher Education . Retrieved December 16, 2020.
  6. ↑ In re Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 375F. Supp. 3d1058 ( N.D. Cal. 2019).
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court sides with former college players in dispute with NCAA over compensation". ESPN . June 21, 2021. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  8. ↑ In re Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 958F.3d1239 ( 9th Cir. 2020).
  9. ↑ Leonard, Mike (December 16, 2020). "Supreme Court to Review NCAA Student-Athlete Compensation Case". Bloomberg News . Retrieved December 16, 2020.
  10. ↑ Higgens, Tucker (March 31, 2021). "Supreme Court appears willing to side with college athletes against NCAA in compensation case". CNBC . Retrieved March 31, 2021.
  11. ↑ Gresko, Jessica (June 21, 2021). "High court sides with former athletes in dispute with NCAA". Associated Press . Retrieved June 21, 2021– via The Seattle Times.
  12. ↑ Williams, Pete (June 21, 2021). "Supreme Court says NCAA can't limit some benefits to student athletes". NBC News . Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  13. 1 2 3 Hurley, Lawrence (June 21, 2021). "In win for athletes, U.S. Supreme Court rejects some NCAA compensation limits". Reuters. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  14. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (June 21, 2021). "Supreme Court rules for student-athletes in battle over NCAA limits on certain benefits". CBS News . Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Nylen, Leah (June 21, 2021). "Supreme Court rules in favor of athletes in NCAA compensation case". Politico. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  16. ↑ de Vogue, Ariane; Duster, Chandelis (June 21, 2021). "Supreme Court rules against NCAA, opening door to significant increase in compensation for student athlete". CNN. Retrieved June 21, 2021.
  17. ↑ Yeban, Jade (October 27, 2023). "Student Athletes: Background on Amateurs vs. Professionals". FindLaw. Retrieved March 12, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.