US Supreme Court rules for athletes

NCAA’s business model would be “flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”

This US Supreme Court ruling is based primarily on antitrust law in the US.

More detail from the New York Times.

In my opinion, this is a long overdue decision.


I’m curious how this ruling will play out in reality. Slippery slope and unintended consequences come to mind.


Hooray! I’ve always felt football players, in particular, were some kind of indentured servitude to their colleges.


From a sports-focused web site: Supreme Court unanimously sides with former college players in dispute with NCAA about compensation

The actual decision:


Can’t wait to watch all the churn and unintended consequences.


Definitely a move in the right direction. I’m not sure what unintended consequences people are worried about. The current system is increasingly difficult to justify.


The eventual changes from the decision today are going to be very interesting. I thought this part of the opinion was particularly interesting “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.”

1 Like

I am glad to see this ruling as it was long overdue.

But what will happen to non-revenue sports? Football and/or basketball often funded the non-revenue sports, including all women’s sports. I predict a huge conflict between this ruling and the demands of Title IX.


Yeah, I stopped being sympathetic to the NCAA a long time ago. The “winner-takes-all” society we currently live in makes it very hard to justify not paying the people responsible for putting people into seats and viewers in front of screens.

1 Like

Time to set up minor leagues for those who want to pursue a sport as a career and stop the sham “general studies majors” who drop out as soon as the season ends and consume millions in college resources to pass the minimum required classes while getting preferred housing, facilities, etc., etc.

Get colleges back to education and students who want to play a sport as a side activity.


@hebegebe As compensation increases for football and basketball players, and athletic budgets continue to contract, non-revenue/olympic men’s sports will be dropped. That will reduce the number of women’s athletic spots, and scholarships, necessary to be in compliance with Title IX.

I’m all for compensating athletes. That doesn’t mean this might not turn out poorly for most college athletes.


I think this is fine…but I wonder about others like student musicians.

Like…the marching bands?

I’m not aware of any NCAA restrictions for compensating musicians. Schools can choose to pay them, provide free instruments, computers, etc. Those musicians also are free to profit off their music, set up YouTube channels, become social media influencers, etc. The NCAA places limits on athletes—but not coaches, cheerleaders, or band members—in all these areas.

1 Like

I don’t think the majority of those who ruled failed to intend all of the consequences that will result. But in any event, the decision is based on the antitrust law. The court has no duty or even ability to care about the consequences.


No they don’t. That’s why it will be interesting to see what happens in real life.

1 Like

No…like orchestras and others who provide the instrumental music for productions that folks pay to buy tickets to see.

But marching band maybe too.

Frankly, I’m tired of college musicians getting the short end of the stick.


I realize the NCAA has no jurisdiction over musicians and other artists. The NCAA deals with athletes. But frankly, College musicians also save colleges money when they perform for performances where the public pays. And college musicians seldom receive huge amounts of financial assistance from many colleges.

Maybe musicians need a “Union” representing them

1 Like

I read the decision and the concurrence. (All that really matters is contained on page 36 of the unanimous decision.)

Appears to be a reasonable result as the Petitioners employed 9 lawyers, while the Respondents had 13 attorneys.

Does anyone else think that Justice Kavanaugh went too far in his concurrence ?

(Seems more like a stump speech by a candidate for political office than a clarifying concurrence by a US Supreme Court justice. Appears to offer rulings on issues not before the Court.)