College sports will likely be changing as we know them in the near future as the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in a landmark antitrust case on Monday that specifically pertains to the NCAA’s ability to limit the benefits of college athletes.
The ruling will end the association’s nationwide limits on education-related benefits athletes can receive for playing college sports.
Athletes playing Division I men’s or women’s basketball or Bowl Subdivision football will be able to receive benefits from their schools that include cash or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation.
Among the other benefits that schools also can offer are scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school and paid internships after athletes have completed their collegiate sports eligibility.
Schools will not be required to provide these types of benefits, and conferences can impose prohibitions on certain benefits if their member schools so choose. However, conferences cannot act in concert. So, if a conference chooses to limit or prevent certain benefits, it risks giving a competitive advantage to other conferences.
The ruling was unanimous.
Obviously, there is a lot to digest there. But the thing that perhaps is the most eye-catching is that athletes may be permitted to receive benefits that include case or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation. Schools don’t have to do that, but one would have to think the ones that do will automatically have a pretty solid recruiting advantage over the ones that don’t.
The impact this could potentially have on athletes’ ability to profit off of their own name, image and likeness will also be fascinating to watch play out. For the NCAA to keep the status quo, they have to find a way to legitimately argue that they have their rules as a way to keep competitive balance and they will lose that without them.
The ruling seemed likely to have at least an indirect impact on the NCAA’s attempts to work through a range of other issues, including athletes’ ability to make money from non-university entities off their name, image and likeness (NIL).
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote: ” … there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary” antitrust legal analysis. Kavanaugh added that the NCAA “must supply a legally valid” justification that “its remaining compensation rules” have sufficient value to promoting competitive balance that the benefits outweigh the harm being done to the athletes.
“As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification,” Kavanaugh wrote.
NIL activities have already been trending toward a point of far more flexibility for athletes with some states and schools already passing laws and rules that will allow the players to profit off of their NIL in the near future. This ruling is potentially forcing the issue in that department even more, as well.
At the end of the day, this comes down to the simple notion that it is being viewed as unconstitutional of the NCAA to be able to restrict the ability of the athletes to monetize themselves while they have that chance. Essentially, therein lies the rub and why these changes may be coming in a a major way very soon.
And here's the quote that could ultimately upend the NCAA model: "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."
— Gabe Feldman (@SportsLawGuy) June 21, 2021
Sooners Wire and USA TODAY will continue to provide updates on this massive story as more updates become available.