SCOTUS to Rule on College Athlete Pay
Just around the time millions of viewers tuned in to watch the March Madness basketball tournament, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Alston vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a case that could have wide implications in college athlete compensation.
The case is an appeal by the NCAA after a 9th circuit ruling removed compensation caps for athletes in a March 2020 decision. Presently, college athletes receive tuition, room, and board for their performance. If the court rules in favor of the athletes, Division I basketball and Football Bowl athletes would be able to receive $5,900 in additional compensation in the form of educational tools such as laptops, musical instruments, paid internships and scholarships.
At the center of the case is a dispute surrounding federal antitrust laws. College athletes contend that the NCAA’s bylaws and regulations create unreasonable barriers that restrict them from benefiting from the profits they generate.
The NCAA, on the other hand, argues changing the current compensation model would create a “pay for play” system that would detract from the sports’ amateurist appeal, which in their view, would drive away fans.
Santa Monica College (SMC) Chair of the Kinesiology & Athletics Department Elaine Roque who played volleyball at UCLA, coached Division I volleyball, and has coached men and women’s volleyball at SMC, recognizes the full-time commitment students endure to excel as athletes.
“You live every day, seven days a week, it's all about your training, it's all about your preparation,” said Roque. “Most of our [SMC] student athletes play because they really love their sport and they want to be the best they can be.”
At the same time, Roque also recognizes the complexities facing some of the college athletic programs. “I think what happens too, is that certain schools really depend on that money to run their entire athletic program...and maybe even parts of the university or college itself,” said Roque.
The amount of revenue college sports generate is notable, the NCAA has a multi-billion-dollar March Madness deal with CBS and makes about $1.1 billion per year in revenue from television rights.
During the March 31, 2021 Supreme Court hearing, conservative members of the court challenged the NCAA’s arguments by focusing on the mass revenue streams the league is generating.
“It does seem...that schools are conspiring with competitors, agreeing with competitors, I'll say that, to pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing. And that just seems entirely circular and even somewhat disturbing,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Other justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, questioned whether the justices might the outcome of the case would lead to additional legal challenges eventually professionalization of college sports.
Roque explained that changes in compensation could give schools with larger athletic budgets a competitive advantage. “Richer schools will be more likely to be successful because they have a lot more money...they have bigger endowments,” said Roque.
Given the varied questions and positions of the justices, it’s unclear how the court will rule next month. In the meantime, some states have begun to address athlete compensation within state lines in relation athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling by the end of June.
