What is the case about and why is it in the news?
NCAA v. Alston is not about name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, athletic compensation, or athletic employment. The case questions whether or not the NCAA’s capping of educationally-related benefits is a violation of antitrust laws. These laws exist to prevent businesses from engaging in practices that restrict free trade, like price fixing and monopolizing, and by capping benefits, Alston argues that the NCAA violates these standards by restraining trade. The NCAA retorts that maintaining its standards of amateurism is essential to its business model, and argues that lifting the caps would allow boosters to give unlimited “gifts” to athletes as a thinly-veiled pay-for-play model. So the NCAA argues, for instance, that if the caps are lifted, a booster could potentially donate a grand piano to a star quarterback to help him in Music Theory 101 instead of outright giving him a gift as an incentive to play for his team. On Wednesday, March 31st, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides, and will likely deliver a final ruling in late spring or early summer.
What are the main arguments?
The biggest argument the NCAA makes in defense of amateurism is that amateurism sets the NCAA apart from other sports organizations, but it’s a misleading argument for two reasons. First, the NCAA is not an amateur sports organization, it’s a big business. Justice Thomas mentioned this in the hearing when he said “it just strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they’re in the amateur ranks, as are the players.” The NCAA’s lead attorney, Seth Waxman, replied that coaches are “professionals,” while college athletes are “amateurs,” but this isn’t really how college sports work today. Collegiate athletics mirror professional athletics in many ways (e.g. athletic time demands, training intensity, constant competition, rampant commercialization) and although only a sliver of college athletes go pro, the NCAA is an essential stepping stone for many of them to get there. So the “amateur” college football players who declare for the draft as seniors are really closer to professional football players wearing college uniforms—their athletic skills don’t just throttle from “amateur level” to “professional grade” overnight. They’re basically professionals already, as are “one-and-done” basketball players and the Olympic-caliber college athletes who participate at both levels at the same time.
There’s also an argument attached to this argument that goes: “people won’t watch college sports if athletes are paid” (again, NCAA v. Alston isn’t about paying athletes, but an extension of amateurism repeal could involve athletic compensation, so it always gets brought up in these contexts). Essentially, the NCAA is contending that amateurism is an essential component of its business because it believes the industry would crumble if college sports become professionalized. However, there aren’t any substantial statistics to back up these claims, and polls show that public opinion is leaning toward allowing college athletes to earn money through NIL endorsements. It’s never been significantly proven that viewers only watch college sports on the condition that college athletes are “amateurs,” especially when college athletes are arguably closer to professional status than the NCAA likes to admit.
The NCAA argued repeatedly that amateurism is pro-competitive, meaning that the NCAA’s enforcement of amateurism promotes competition in collegiate athletics, but any college football fan knows this isn’t true—competitive balance in college sports is skewed toward Power Five schools. Since the College Football Playoff format was adopted in 2014, no Group of Five school has ever won a national championship, and the BCS era never saw a Group of Five champion, either. This year’s national champion, the University of Alabama, has also won six national championships in a twelve-year span, meaning that a single school is likely to win a title 50% of the time! This happens under the NCAA’s current, amateurism-friendly structure, so we know that amateurism doesn’t actually foster fair competition in college sports.
Alston v. NCAA isn’t about athletic compensation, but this argument is still worth addressing. Any time someone says that social change will categorically “ruin” something, whether it be an industry, an institution, or an oppressive way of living, be alert. This apocalyptic rhetoric pops up any time major changes are presented to institutions. For instance, we heard talk of Title IX “ruining college sports” before it became law, and people commonly thought that free agency would “ruin” leagues like the NFL, MLB, and the NBA. History repeatedly proves that these scenarios are unlikely. Title IX hasn’t taken anything away from male athletes, and has provided women more opportunities in collegiate athletics, and professional sports remain popular decades after their leagues allowed free agency. The NCAA also allows limited compensation to athletes already, in the form of scholarships, benefits, per diem, gear, and gifts, which again, brings its “amateur” label into question.
For now, it’s up to the courts to weigh in. Follow LRT Sports to stay informed.
Katie Lever isn’t a lawyer, but she’s a former D1 athlete and current doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin where she studies NCAA discourse. Follow her on Twitter to keep up with the NCAA: @leverfever
Posted on April 5, 2021 in NCAA Policy & Rules
When doing research in the recruiting process for my daughter I came across the LRT Sports website. I was immediately intrigued as this was another dimension of the recruiting process that many people don't even consider. My daughter and I could "short list" schools based on the education she was looking for, as well as the opportunity to play her sport. LRT Sports not only gave us pertinent information into the recruiting process with different interviews of coaches and players, it also gave us insight into current and/or former players' opinions on the coach of that school in her sport. We could use this information to re-prioritize my daughters list of schools based on this feedback. I have many friends that are, or will be, going through this process shortly and I highly recommend using LRT Sports as part of anyone's recruiting process.
The college process presents a myriad of challenges. Factor in athletics and it becomes even more daunting. Now, add the fact that you have zero experience with sports. What is a the mother of a college bound student-athlete to do? LRT Sports has truly lived up to its promise. It has kept "the college recruiting process honest and easy by providing first hand information about coaches, schools and the recruiting process." Their interviews with current students, coaches, and professional athletes have provided realistic guidance. I am much more informed because of LRT Sports! The coach ratings are the most helpful. LRT Sports interviews allow us to hear from students as to how the adults are impacting not only their athletic experience but also how they are helping to shape their adult self.
The C.A.L.C. was thrilled to have Keirsten Sires come and speak to us on multiple topics relevant to high school athletics today, including recruiting. Keirsten reached all of our students and left them with great strategies that will not only help on the fields, courts, and mats, but also in the game of recruiting. She was a true professional and delivered a wonderful message.
Now that the recruiting process and the related stress is over, I wanted to thank you for your guidance. You did so much more than we had expected. Once you started the process by matching the best academic schools first, not the best sport programs, I knew you were the one. The way you laid out a timeline of contacting coaches, visits, and camps completely took any guesswork out of the plan for us. All of the student athletes that you put us in touch with gave us a look from the inside, and made us more comfortable knowing what was coming. Finally, using your website as a resource for knowing what to expect from different coaches based on former recruit reviews gave my son confidence before our meetings. There is no way we could have figured this out on our own, you really put us in a great position when decision time came.
I think hearing from other athletes is very beneficial. To be able to learn from people’s mistakes, and to be able to have access to those voices is really helpful; especially voices that have been there and done that. It’s very important for people to have access to information that could benefit them, and in this case there are many voices that can help the next wave of athletes.
If you have something that’s going to spell [the recruiting process] out for you… it’s so valuable. I think what everyone at LRT Sports is doing to spread the word and help advocate and educate athletes on the recruitment process is incredible.
Without question would have used LRT Sports. It would have probably been one of the most valuable tools that I could have had. If you want to know what these coaches are really like then I think this is the best tool out there. I’m really glad you are allowing recruits to have a resource like this moving forward.