Supreme Court: NCAA rules violate anti-trust laws

[frozenchief]

Big decision from the Supremes today. They unanimously (!) decide that NCAA rules that restrict educational benefits given to athletes, such as eligibility and scholarships, violate anti-trust rules. The lower court had said that the NCAA could restrict non-educational benefits, such as cash salaries and that issue was not appealed and so it was not before the court. In a rather strong concurrence, though, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the same reasoning that the court applied today would apply to non-educational benefits, such as cash salaries. Put another way, he's strongly hinting that the court would rule the same way if student-athletes sought to challenges NCAA prohibitions against cash payments.

Initial analysis, including a link to the opinion, is here:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/i...ntitrust-laws/

I recognize that Court decisions usually go to the DC forum. However, this relates directly to NCAA rules of all sports and my purpose is not a discussion about the Court but about what effect this will have upon collegiate athletics.

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

I sometimes think the future of college athletics (football, basketball and baseball) is completely abandoning the idea that the athletes are students. Just be the G League but located at colleges. You're still called Duke Bluedevils but the employed G League athletes don't have to pretend to go to class.

That could be where this ends up for high-profile sports, such as football and basketball. Baseball and hockey are popular but not as popular on the collegiate level.

But sports like swimming, gymnastics or rugby? I think they will continue to be student-athletes unless those sports become much more popular than they are now.

[mr. tegu]

I think a salary cap of sorts would actually increase the level of competition. If all division l football programs had the same budget, a terrible team like KU could decide to get crazy with some top QB recruit and in one move improve their standing compared to other schools. The top schools would still win out more often than not, but the same five or six maybe wouldn’t have the monopoly they do and it could spread to maybe 15-20 actual contenders.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I think a salary cap of sorts would actually increase the level of competition. If all division l football programs had the same budget, a terrible team like KU could decide to get crazy with some top QB recruit and in one move improve their standing compared to other schools. The top schools would still win out more often than not, but the same five or six maybe wouldn’t have the monopoly they do and it could spread to maybe 15-20 actual contenders.

Would your salary cap idea also help KU upgrade their crappy facilities and high school caliber football stadium?

Would it prevent them from making bad coaching hires… i.e. Charlie Weis and Les Miles?

[sedated]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Would your salary cap idea also help KU upgrade their crappy facilities and high school caliber football stadium?

Would it prevent them from making bad coaching hires… i.e. Charlie Weis and Les Miles?

No, and that's exactly why the teams at the top with the most money wouldn't automatically be the best. There are other factors. The Yankees don't always win the World Series. Indiana was a blue blood (and likely paid players) but some bad coaching hires have ruined that program. Kentucky got the top recruiting class every year for a long stretch but only won 1 title.