The Supreme Court has ruled that the previously defined NCAA limit on education-related bonuses and gifts that schools can give to student-athletes is without cause and in fact in contradiction to federal law, though the question of salaries is undecided.
This comes after years of college student-athletes received only tuition and room and board as it opens the door for higher earning potential for these valuable individuals.
“As a former student-athlete, I know how lucrative college sports can be for everyone but the players. This is a good step toward getting student-athletes compensation and I look forward to working with the NCAA to establish national standards,” U.S. Rep. Colin Allred (D-Dallas) tweeted.
The ruling by the Supreme Court found that the limits on educational benefits was a violation of antitrust law, ruling that it must be ended.
“By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, [the lower court’s decision] may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools,” Justice Neil Gorsuchwrote.
The benefits that could be offered to students include computers, internships and musical instruments, to name a few.
“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh stated that tradition is not a good enough justification for what the NCAA is doing to profit off of student-athletes.
The NCAA claims that it still has autonomy to limit compensation which will help to maintain the nature of college sports.
The case was originally brought forward by NCAA Division 1 football and basketball athletes who complained about the $5,000 education related benefits, claiming it was a violation of antitrust laws.
