Law & Courts

U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Athletes Over NCAA in Case on Education-Related Compensation

By Mark Walsh — June 21, 2021 5 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a major defeat to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, unanimously upholding a lower-court injunction that requires increased education-related compensation of student-athletes, such as for graduate school scholarships, paid post-eligibility internships, and study abroad.

The case, NCAA v. Alston (No. 20-512), has drawn the interest of the precollegiate sports world for its potential impact on college recruitment of high school athletes. But the decision is likely to be widely, and immediately, felt in college sports.

Writing for the court, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said a federal district judge had applied the correct level of scrutiny under federal antitrust law when she ruled in part for a class of college student-athletes who challenged many of the NCAA’s compensation rules. The judge considered the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related aid a restraint on trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

“To the extent [the NCAA] means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade—that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money—we cannot agree,” Gorsuch said.

He said the Supreme Court could not resolve the national debate about amateurism in college sports, and whether the injunction went too far in “undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics,” or not far enough in granting “fuller relief” to student-athletes clamoring for more compensation.

“Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law,” Gorsuch said. “That review persuades us the district court acted within the law’s bounds.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said the court’s conclusion that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws “marks an important and overdue course correction.”

The NCAA’s other rules barring non-education-related payments to college athletes and barring them from endorsement deals, which weren’t before the high court in this case, “also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws,” Kavanaugh said.

“The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America,” he said. “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”

Expansion of education aid, including payments of nearly $6,000

The NCAA said in a statement that “while today’s decision preserves the lower court ruling, it also reaffirms the NCAA’s authority to adopt reasonable rules and repeatedly notes that the NCAA remains free to articulate what are and are not truly educational benefits, consistent with the NCAA’s mission to support student-athletes.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert said in the statement that the organization remains committed to supporting so-called name, image, and likeness benefits for student athletes. That issue also was not before the court in this case, but the NCAA has been pressured by a growing number of state laws that would grant college athletes such NIL rights. Some of the laws, which clash with current NCAA rules, are set to take effect July 1.

In the Alston case, two lower courts rejected the original goal of the class action by college athletes, which was to remove all limits on compensation. But those courts found that the NCAA’s rules restricting education-related aid to student-athletes violated federal antitrust law.

A 2019 injunction in the case by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, Calif., upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, and now by the Supreme Coiurt, authorizes the expansion of education aid to include unlimited payments for post-eligibility internships and annual cash payments of nearly $6,000 above scholarships and other aid that student-athletes now receive to cover the full “cost of attendance” at their institutions.

The NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that its rules were “procompetitive” under antitrust principles because they help define college sports as a product distinct from professional sports.

Gorsuch, whose opinion outlined the history of intercollegiate sports going back to an 1852 boat race between Harvard and Yale that included lavish prizes, described college sports today as a “massive business” where TV rights fees bring in billions of dollars, the NCAA president earns $4 million per year, and some coaches earn much more than that.

“The NCAA is free to argue that, because of the special characteristics of its particular industry, it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is properly addressed to Congress,” Gorsuch said.

Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, said the bottom line of the case is that “the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes.”

He acknowledged that there might be “difficult policy and practical questions” if all the NCAA’s compensation rules were struck down, such as how paying athletes more might affect non-revenue sports and whether athletes in some sports but not others should receive pay. Also, he wondered how any compensation system would comply with Title IX, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs and which plays a key role in requiring equal athletic opportunities for female college athletes.

Kavanaugh said those questions might be resolved through legislation or even collective bargaining between colleges and student athletes.

The opinions did not address concerns raised about the case’s implications for high school sports.

The National Federation of State High School Associations, which writes rules for high school sports, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the NCAA, arguing that under a ruling for the college athletes, “many premier high school student athletes would become motivated less by their love of sports and more by the prospect of being rewarded handsomely to play certain sports in college.”

There was no immediate response by the federation to a request for comment.


School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Get a Strong Start to the New School Year
Get insights and actions from Education Week journalists and expert guests on how to start the new school year on strong footing.
Reading & Literacy Webinar A Roadmap to Multisensory Early Literacy Instruction: Accelerate Growth for All Students 
How can you develop key literacy skills with a diverse range of learners? Explore best practices and tips to meet the needs of all students. 
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
College & Workforce Readiness Webinar
Supporting 21st Century Skills with a Whole-Child Focus
What skills do students need to succeed in the 21st century? Explore the latest strategies to best prepare students for college, career, and life.
Content provided by Panorama Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts In a Chat, Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices Talk Civics, Media Literacy
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett discussed civics education in a recorded interview presented by the Ronald Reagan Institute.
3 min read
Civics Justices 07292022 172183035
iStock/Getty Images Plus
Law & Courts Conservative Parent Group Sues School District Over Curriculum That Discusses Race and Gender
The lawsuit, among the first to cite a state law curbing discussions of those topics, could have broad implications for school districts.
9 min read
Image of a pending lawsuit.
Law & Courts Appeals Court Revives Student's Free Speech Suit Over Antisemitic Social Media Post
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reinstated a case involving an off-campus post referring to the extermination of Jews.
3 min read
Image of a gavel
Law & Courts The Supreme Court and Education: Key Rulings That Impact Schools
A recap of the court's decisions that are relevant to schools and educators.
4 min read
Paul D. Clement at the lectern for the petitioner.
A sketch by Art Lien, who just retired after a long career as a courtroom artist, shows U.S. Supreme Court arguments in April in <i>Kennedy</i> v. <i>Bremerton School District</i>, a case about a high school football coach's post-game prayers and one of several cases of interest to educators during the court's 2021-22 term.
Art Lien