34 thoughts on “Supreme Court Unanimous In Favor of NCAA Student-Athletes: Read It For Yourself

  1. The holding is relatively narrow, as the quote notes, applying to academic-related benefits. Kavanaugh’s concurrence is more interesting, and an invitation to further cases, since his opinion is now that the Court has decided antitrust laws apply to the NCAA, the NCAA is most likely engaged in other practices that violate those laws.Report

        1. I have not read the decision which makes my comment totally irresponsible but I feel compelled to make it anyway. The rationale in this excerpt is extremely weak in the sense that it doesn’t distinguish between revenue and profit. Very, very few programs are profitable, even if they generate revenue.

          Maybe Kavanaugh addresses this elsewhere but this really isn’t dispositive of anything.Report

          1. What does the NCAA say?

            They say this:

            As a non-profit organization, we put our money where our mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

            The NCAA and our member colleges and universities together award nearly $3.5 billion in athletic scholarships every year to more than 180,000 student-athletes.

            In addition, we provide almost $100 million each year to support student-athletes’ academic pursuits and assist them with the basic needs of college life, such as a computer, clothing or emergency travel expenses.

            We also put on 90 championships in 24 sports, protect student-athletes with catastrophic-injury insurance coverage and fund a number of scholarship, grant and internship programs.

            Television and marketing rights fees, primarily from the Division I men’s basketball championship, generate the majority of our revenue. Championship ticket sales provide most of the remaining dollars. A small percentage of that revenue is used to operate the NCAA’s national office, including the operation of championship events.

            While I may smile and nod along as I read that, I can’t help but remember that Return of the Jedi still hasn’t turned a profit.Report

            1. My sympathy for the NCAA is limited. But the economic model they have now is based on men’s basketball and football subsidizing everything else. Maybe there’s more cash laying around, and I find the restrictions on endorsements for those with a market for them hard to justify. I’m just unconvinced that this can be done without gutting the stuff that operates at a loss.Report

              1. Maybe it is because I went to a Division III school that had basketball but not football, I’m pretty sure that basketball did not pay for anything else. I do not even think they charged admission to games. I can’t even remember a big push to get people to go to games.Report

              2. I think it’s rare for a school to have both a great basketball and football program.

                There’s no financial benefit in it. Like, what do I know about UNC? Are the graduates any good? All I have to work with is the name recognition from basketball, but that reputation is going to open some doors. Adding a great football program wouldn’t make them any more famous though.Report

              3. UNC is academically an excellent school, which is well-known to anyone who needs to know or otherwise cares. So is nearby Duke.
                I don’t know what you mean by “rare” or “great.” Off the top of my head I can think of better-than-good football and basketball programs at Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, and Ohio State.Report

  2. Kavanaugh’s concurrence is surprisingly strong and logical. He is basically calling the NCAA out on this amateur bull feces and saying pay the athletes what they deserve.Report

        1. A few years ago Congress passed the Save America’s Pastime Act on a bipartisan basis, which ensured minor league ballplayers remained excluded from the federal minimum wage and overtime laws. (They were already excluded as seasonal recreation, but the training regiment had essentially extended throughout the year)

          I am not confident that the potential dissolution of college football/basketball is too risky for politicians to ignore. If University of Alabama were to dissolve its recruiting apparatus and offer signees $66,000 per year, while Northwestern University tried to recruit on the grounds that their free tuition, room and board is worth more than that, I guess the market will tell us which school is better at football.Report

          1. It would just sort into 10 or 12 premier money-making programs and everything else collapsing into non-existence or student clubs with players paying to participate.Report

              1. Sure, if you want to minimize the substance you can look at it that way. The real question IMO is whether the case for paying those few who can command it merits eliminating the free rides for the many who can’t.Report

              2. Right, and it calls into question why we have college sports in the first place.

                If the NFL and NBA want a training system to feed younger players into their system, maybe they should pay the cost of establishing minor leagues instead of asking the taxpayers and tuition payers to do it via colleges.Report

              1. You have a handful of elite programs that are truly profitable. But there are plenty that are popular enough and that drive a lot of gross revenue but the net is negligible or negative.Report

              2. One of my alma maters, a large private research university, made a pretty public stand about eliminating their football program or drop to (division III?). They issued a study that concluded that only about a dozen schools were making money off of their programs, so they weren’t doing something wrong. They decided to keep the program because it maintained interactions with alumni donors and served as advertising for the school. And presumably the threat of ending football brought some money in.

                I went to a football game once while I attended, something like an 82-4 shellacking from Alabama, who probably paid for the game. Twenty years of student loans didn’t warm me to the hat passed my way.Report

              3. Every study I’ve heard of has come to a similar conclusion. 10-12 of them actually make money. The rest are some level of economic basket case but serve as critical branding and some other functions that make eliminating them hard to stomach.

                My undergrad’s football team shows up every 10 or 15 years for a flash in the pan but is generally meh. The basketball team on the other hand arguably has the most intense fan base in the region including when compared to the pro sports franchises. People absolutely attend the school to be part of it. Nevertheless there’s an endless stream of stories bubbling up about financial issues with the athletics department. A good friend of mine worked on the donations and gift side and the stories he would occasionally tell after a few beers were quite eye opening.Report

          2. Fair but a lot of things can change in a few years or less and the tide is turning against the NCAA. I don’t think Congress is that unaware of how bad it would look to reverse the Supremes on this one.Report

        2. The NCAA, probably not. Alabama football, OTOH, may have considerable support. North Carolina men’s basketball. If the NCAA announced that it was dissolving next month (July), the Power Five conferences would have an inter-conference arrangement for men’s football worked out before fall practices started. Basketball would take a little longer because they have to figure out how to deal with schools like Gonzaga.Report

          1. Athletic Directors and Football coaches at SEC schools are generally the most well paid people on campus. Sometimes basketball coaches. This tells you all you really need to know about the value placed on the teams by their schools.Report

  3. Vox’s senior correspondent has weighed in on this 9-0 decision:

    Report

    1. Assuming he wasn’t being sarcastic – which is sometimes hard to tell in tweets – the more interesting question is what does this decision tell us about SCOTUS views on whether NCAA Sports are really businesses. That would make he anti-trust shrinkage all the more interesting.Report

      1. Assuming sarcasm on his part, given his history with ThinkProgress and the Center for American Progress, strikes me as a lot shakier ground than “nope, he actually thinks this”.

        Report

Comments are closed.