US Supreme Court backs payments for student athletes
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that America's top university athletics body cannot use its monopoly power to block student-athletes from ...
SportUS university sports governed by the NCAA, including football, are a hugely lucrative business but the athletes themselves don't reap the financial benefits, the Supreme Court said. (Photo: AFP/Christian Petersen)22 Jun 2021 03:25AMShare this content
BookmarkWASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday (Jun 21) that America's top university athletics body cannot block student-athletes from getting extra benefits, eroding its power over the multi-billion-dollar college sports industry.The high court sided unanimously with student-athletes in a narrow case focused on whether they can receive limited cash or non-cash benefits from their schools related to their education, which the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) currently forbids.
AdvertisementAdvertisementWhile it did not weigh in on whether student-athletes should be able to cash in completely on their performances, the Supreme Court made it clear it did not accept the NCAA's claim that its strict ban on their earning any money, to retain"amateur" status, was important to the business. headtopics.com
The court called the NCAA an effective monopoly in its control over the lucrative industry of college sports."Put simply, this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the opinion.
"No one disputes that the NCAA's restrictions in fact decrease the compensation that student-athletes receive compared to what a competitive market would yield."AdvertisementAdvertisementThe long-brewing case, NCAA v Alston et al, did not address the hottest topic of college sports: whether athletes, like universities and the NCAA, should benefit from endorsements or monetisation of their personal images, such as sales of shirts bearing their names.
But the court said the NCAA could not prove that athletes keeping their amateur status was important to what Gorsuch called its"massive business.""Those who run this enterprise profit in a different way than the student-athletes whose activities they oversee," he said.
"The president of the NCAA earns nearly $4 million per year. Commissioners of the top conferences take home between $2 to $5 million... And annual salaries for top Division I college football coaches approach $11 million."Advertisement'PRICE-FIXING LABOUR' headtopics.com
The ruling appeared to open the gate for a broader challenge to the NCAA's control on how student-athletes can earn money, or share in the profits the NCAA and universities rake in."Price-fixing labour is price-fixing labour," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion.
"The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America," he said."All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks' wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks."
The White House applauded the ruling, while the NCAA said the court had reaffirmed its authority to adopt"reasonable rules" and that it remained free to judge what constitutes"truly educational benefits."Individual states will implement new laws on July 1 that give student-athletes the right to profit from endorsements, so-called"name, image and likeness" (NIL) benefits.
Currently the NCAA bans them from profiting from social media, sales of shirts bearing their names, video games using their likenesses and apparel deals arranged by their schools.But the much smaller National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, authorised NIL benefits last year. headtopics.com
The NCAA has stalled on the issue, leading to Congress now debating legislation.The council for NCAA's powerful Division I, representing the largest and richest schools, will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday and could discuss the issue."The NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement.
"Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling." Read more: CNA »
Outpouring of support will spur me on, says Joseph Schooling after Olympics exit
TOKYO: Less than a day after his exit from the 2020 Olympic Games, Joseph Schooling sits on a foldable chair in the shadow of the hulking Tokyo ...
Golf-Reality check ends fairytale Bland run at US OpenSAN DIEGO, Calif.: Halfway U.S. Open co-leader Richard Bland received a sobering reality check when he plunged out of contention with a ...
Golf-Oosthuizen in three-way tie for US Open leadPerennial major contender Louis Oosthuizen sank a monster eagle putt at the final hole to vault into a three-way tie for the lead after the third ...
Golf-Birdies plentiful early in US Open third roundRenowned for being the toughest test on the golf calendar, the U.S. Open was proving to be an exception to the rule early in the third round on ...
Huge changes for Internet and Big Tech under US antitrust proposalThe antitrust overhaul package unveiled in Congress targeting Big Tech, if enacted, could have far-reaching effects on how people use the internet ...
Golf-Oosthuizen hopes to shake off second-place major run at US OpenSAN DIEGO, Calif.: South African Louis Oosthuizen has a shot at turning major frustration into U.S. Open glory, entering the final round at ... high,high probability
Golf-McIlroy targets final-round 68 at US OpenSAN DIEGO, Calif.: Rory McIlroy is finally back with a chance at the business end of a major championship, two strokes from the lead at the U.S.