As March Madnessplays out on TV, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a rare excursion into sports law Wednesday in a case testing whether the NCAA's limits on compensation for student-athletes violate the nation's antitrust laws. The outcome could have enormous consequences for college athletics.
The NCAA maintains that notwithstanding antitrust law, the amateur sports governing body may impose certain limits on athlete compensation in order to preserve relative parity of play, and to maintain what the NCAA contends is the essence of college sports' popularity — namely, amateurism.
The players, on the other hand, say the NCAA is operating a system that is a classic restraint of competition in business, and there is little doubt that big-time college sports is a business.
Siding with the student-athletes are the professional players’ associations for the NFL, the NBA and the WNBA, and the National Women's Soccer League. They note, for instance, that NCAA rules permit tennis players to accept up to $10,000 per year in prize money prior to college enrollment, but football, basketball, and soccer players may not receive such payments.
The NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that student athletics, even when profitable, are unique; they are popular because the players are students, not professional athletes. College sports are largely exempt from the antitrust laws, the NCAA argues, because the rules limiting compensation "widen choices for consumers by distinguishing college sports from professional sports."
Compliance & Ethics