Introduction
A closely watched case between NCAA v. Alston is among the major cases in the world of sports. The case is on the argument of challenging restrictions on educational compensation for athletes. It is projected that the supreme court's ruling regarding this case will impact not only the college athletes but also the implementation of the antitrust law. This will, in turn, transform how the application of the antitrust law impacts the sports leagues and other related ventures. Can the National Collegiate Athletic Association cap the educational benefits colleges grant to their students through this case? What will this mean to the entire sporting world regarding professionals and amateurs?
Statement of Problem/Issue
The case was presented by student-athletes in division 1 football and Division 1 men and women's basketball (Supreme Court United States, 2018). According to the NCAA, student-athletes should not be entitled to compensation from athletic events. The student-athletes should be regarded as amateur, and only professional athletes should be entitled to unlimited compensation. The stand by NAAC to limit cash or cash-like benefits from student-athletes compelled the students to file a case against NCAA. The students argue that access to payment should not be limited, and student-athletes should enjoy full privileges like other professional athletes (Oyez, 2020). According to the students, the move by NAAC violates the Sherman act on antitrust law. In their presentation, the NAAC observes that using an abbreviated differential review referred to as “quick look” would be a better way to define amateurism (Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, 2021). In doing so, the cap that requires limitation to students' benefits will be valid and agreeable to the antitrust law. The current approach for defining amateurism is on the rule of reason analysis. The U.S. Court of Appeals agrees with NAAC on its interests in preserving Amateurism but still insists that the move is against the federal antitrust law, which is a blow to NAAC. In a more valid state, the NAAC argues that it is its mandate to define terms and not the courts' obligation. NAAC continues to purport that the court should cease the business of defining the rules regarding amateurism. Instead, NAAC affirms that it is its joint venture and mandates to define the product that it offers. In its defense, NAAC defends its stand with the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision guaranteeing courts to apply the less searching review on terms like amateurism (Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, 2021). Therefore, NAAC affirmed that the court erred in the use of reason while ruling against it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Literature Review
In the student-athletes defense regarding the error as proposed by NAAC, they are joined by the United States as amicus curiae agree with the court application of the rule of reason to analyze the evidence brought by NAAC. The students also criticized the Board of Regents as dicta language used by NAAC as the defense. They believe that there have been major changes in the athletics world in 37 years and that the focus on getting an exception from the antitrust law is what NAAC is looking for from the court.
During the oral argument, the justices questioned lawyers from both sides. Members of the court noted that the NAAC lawyer based his arguments on tradition and history and agreed that most of the NAAC lawyers' events were overtaken by events due to the major changes in the Athletics world (Oyez, 2020). Notably, the judges used variations of the word “exploitation” when describing the student-athletes treatment. They also applied open questioning and weighed into the reason rule and application of the same and whether it would affect the amateurism rules by NAAC.
NAAC, in another argument, maintains that the provision of post eligibility internships where student-athletes are paid unlimited cash benefits and amounts grants not less than $5,890 per year is likely to be given to any student who joins and maintains athletic eligibility. And while relying on the definition of amateurism by the courts, NAAC fears that the outcomes might challenge the way colleges compensate the student-athletes.
Recently, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), the co-sponsors of the federal NIL bill, are making an effort on bi-partisan agreement to ensure the rights of athletes are protected and well presented (DELLENGER, 2020). This is a way to strengthen schools in compensating athletes and encourage the building of professionals.
Discussion
In my opinion, the case court case outcomes of NCAA v. Alston will impact the world of athletics and other leagues. Ruling in favor of Alston will mean that the student-athlete entitlement to compensation will be in effect, and this will be a win for future amateur students. It will also be part of the system to ensure that organizations that deal with sports observe the antitrust law. It will also check into the monopsony power that NAAC has and how it can benefit student-athletes. Future generations will likely praise the decisions arrived at during this case if they protect athletes' rights.
If NAAC wins the case, there will be a clear distinction between college athletes and professional sports. This will save the hefty packs paid to athletes and also promote professionalism when it comes to athletics. Additionally, the ruling in favor of NAAC will strengthen athletes' eligibility for advancing professionalism. Regarding the position of NAAC, it will remain the body to determine who is eligible to play college sports.
Conclusion
While the court case of NCAA v. Alston is still in progress and a ruling expected in June, it is not yet clear about who will receive the five votes from the judges. However, the outcomes might be in favor of the players. Hopefully, the case will conclude this year because the case was brought forward back in 2014. There might be future legal challenges regarding similar issues, but I think this case will not be available in the next five years.
References
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC. (2021, April 6). Supreme Court hears oral argument in "Pay for play" Case: NCAA v. Alston. Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-4393533/
Dellenger, R. (2021, March 30). Amid March Madness, U.S. Supreme Court to hear athletes' rights case. Retrieved from https://www.si.com/college/2021/03/30/ncaa-supreme-court-athlete-rights-name-image-likeness
Maese, R. (2021, March 30). The NCAA, under fire over amateurism, takes its fight to the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/04/02/ncaa-vs-alston-supreme-court-oral-arguments/
OYEZ. (2021, March 31). Facts of the case. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-512
Supreme Court United States. (2018). ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The Grants Register 2019 , 1-38. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-95810-8_856
