SCOTUS to hear antitrust cases inv. paying college athletes.
Dec 16, 2020 10:21:36 GMT -5
sader1970 likes this
Post by alum on Dec 16, 2020 10:21:36 GMT -5
The Scotusblog description of these cases.
"In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and American Athletic Conference v. Alston, Division I football and basketball players sued the NCAA and multiple collegiate conferences under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1984, the Supreme Court said in NCAA v. Board of Regents that rules concerning eligibility standards, including that “athletes must not be paid” and “must be required to attend class,” were procompetitive and should be analyzed differently than typical antitrust cases. Earlier this year, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that student-athlete payment limits violate the Sherman Act. The petitions from the NCAA and conferences ask the justices to review the 9th Circuit’s decision."
I have mixed emotions about this issue. I like college sports as an "amateur" pursuit and I believe that for the vast majority of college athletes, the value of their scholarship (even for a partial one) far exceeds what the market would pay for their athletic talents. On the other hand, I recognize that there is a subsection of college athletes--mostly football and basketball players--who are grossly underpaid relative to the value they bring to their schools.
"In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and American Athletic Conference v. Alston, Division I football and basketball players sued the NCAA and multiple collegiate conferences under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1984, the Supreme Court said in NCAA v. Board of Regents that rules concerning eligibility standards, including that “athletes must not be paid” and “must be required to attend class,” were procompetitive and should be analyzed differently than typical antitrust cases. Earlier this year, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that student-athlete payment limits violate the Sherman Act. The petitions from the NCAA and conferences ask the justices to review the 9th Circuit’s decision."
I have mixed emotions about this issue. I like college sports as an "amateur" pursuit and I believe that for the vast majority of college athletes, the value of their scholarship (even for a partial one) far exceeds what the market would pay for their athletic talents. On the other hand, I recognize that there is a subsection of college athletes--mostly football and basketball players--who are grossly underpaid relative to the value they bring to their schools.