[ad_1]
This is the legal and financial version of “March Madness”.
With sports fans focusing on the women’s and men’s college basketball tournament, the United States Supreme Court served as the arbiter on Wednesday in a high-stakes competition over the future of amateur athletics.
The judges heard 95 minutes of oral argument on whether the NCAA – the main governing body of intercollegiate sports – is using its antitrust protections to illegally cap non-monetary “educational benefits” for student-athletes.
This is the first time the High Court has examined the NCAA business model in nearly four decades. The very future of college sport – and the large sums for many schools that support it – could be at stake.
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR NCAA ATHLETE COMPENSATION CASES
The case comes amid growing calls for more student pay, especially in profitable sports like basketball and Division I football. Current rules do not allow students to be paid to play, and scholarships and other benefits are strictly capped.
But a High Court ruling for players could allow schools to offer additional and far-reaching ‘education-related’ benefits – like graduate scholarships, paid internships and computers.
A majority of the court appeared ready to side, at least in part, with the players, with several offering skepticism about the NCAA’s position.
Judge Samuel Alito: “The argument is that they are recruited, they are exhausted, then they are put aside without even a university degree. [critics] let’s say, how can we defend this in the name of amateurism? “
Judge Elena Kagan: “Why shouldn’t we think of it this way, that they are competitors, all together with total market power, setting the prices?”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh: “Antitrust laws shouldn’t be a cover for the exploitation of student-athletes, so that’s a concern, a primary concern here … Schools are conspiring with competitors, to pay no wages to the workers who earn schools billions of dollars. “
Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett have also expressed concerns about the NCAA’s position.
The NCAA says that a century more rules have preserved the integrity and fairness in the unique atmosphere of amateur sports. He fears that excessive relaxation of the rules could, for example, allow large schools to supply Corvette cars to highly recruited student-athletes for their daily transportation needs.
But many of these athletes say that the sports organization, schools and conferences unfairly earn billions from their performances.
The NCAA says it is reforming and allowing student-athletes to benefit in part from their names, images or likenesses. For top talent, that could mean money from sponsorship deals and personal appearances.
Several judges have expressed concerns about whether the relaxation of the rules would create a disguised and disguised fee-for-service scenario.
Chief Justice John Roberts said, ‘It’s like a game of Jenga. (Photo by Bill O’Leary / The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Chief Justice John Roberts: “It’s like a game of Jenga. You have this nice, solid block that protects the kind of product that schools want to provide, and you pull out one log and then another and you’re good, then one. another and another and all of a sudden everything came – crumbles. “
Judge Stephen Breyer: “This is no ordinary product … I am very concerned that the judges are getting into the task of deciding how amateur sports should be run.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: “How do we know that we are not destroying the game as it is? … Any fix would come after the fact, after amateurism has been destroyed in college sports. How can we make sure that this will not happen? “
The financial stakes are enormous. The University of Alabama, the defending college football champion, said its athletic program generated $ 189.3 million in revenue last year. Head football coach Nick Saban is reportedly making around $ 9.3 million a year.
Some current college athletes participating in the current basketball championship tournament protested this week on social media using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty.
“The argument is simple. We deserve the opportunity to make money out of our name, image and likeness,” tweeted Geo Baker, the guardian of Rutgers University. “If you don’t agree with this statement, then you are saying that you believe that I, a human being, should belong to something else.
Former athletes who first filed suit in 2014 won every step of the way, with courts finding NCAA rules anti-competitive. These athletes have the backing of the Biden administration and player associations in professional sports groups such as the NFL, WNBA, and NBA.
Shawne Alston, a former running back at the University of West Virginia, was among the first plaintiffs.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Longtime sports broadcaster and Fox News contributor Jim Gray says the NCAA has long resisted change. “The whole system, the whole structure of it all needs to be rethought and reformed,” he said. “These institutions make billions of dollars from television. Everyone touches it. Everyone brings it home. The sneaker companies make a profit. The coaches make a profit. Everyone except those who provide the trainer. service and put the product. The players they need to get paid. It’s long overdue. “
The NCAA – with the backing of major college sports conferences – says it continues to reform, but its efforts have been blocked by continued anti-trust lawsuits. The organization’s president, Mark Emmert, urged Congress to get involved.
“Without the help of Congress, I am concerned that imbalances in the recruitment, reinforcement activities and potentially direct remuneration of student-athletes professionalize varsity sport, turn varsity athletes into employees and erode the fundamental character of varsity sport.” , he said in a recent Senate. hearing.
In a light moment at the start of the telephone row, attorney Seth Waxman, representing the NCAA, mistakenly referred to Thomas as “the chief justice.”
“Thanks for the promotion,” Thomas laughed.
“There is no opening,” said Roberts, the current occupant of the seat.
The consolidated cases are National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston (20-512) and American Athletic Conference v. Alston (20-520).
A decision is expected at the end of June.
[ad_2]
Source link