Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion stated his view that “the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under antitrust laws.” However, the concurring opinion also recognized the complexity of policy and practical questions should remaining compensation rules be deemed to violate antitrust laws including the effect on nonrevenue sports and how institutions would comply with Title IX under a different compensation model, among other issues. The NCAA and member schools remain free to propose a definition of compensation or benefits “related to education.” Further, individual conferences and institutions are free to impose their own restrictions. The Court emphasized that the injunction at issue applied only to the NCAA and multi-conference agreements involving education-related benefits that schools may make available to student-athletes. There are other ways to regulate college athletics that do not run afoul of antitrust laws.The Court’s decision did not wade into the national debate related to amateurism in college sports or so-called “pay-for-play.” The Court noted that the District Court did not disturb the NCAA’s rules limiting undergraduate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance. The “rule of reason” applies to scrutiny under antitrust laws. ![]() Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984) that commented on the critical role in maintaining the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports as one “entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act” is not binding on the Court, nor dispositive on the antitrust issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |