here ...

Posted on: June 21, 2021 at 13:45:23 CT

("the question of salaries was not before the court.")

The Supreme Court on Monday sided against the NCAA in a case concerning player compensation in college sports.

In a unanimous ruling, the court found that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly ruled that the league's limitations on how schools can compensate athletes violated antitrust law...

"You can look at the limitations of benefits or pay to players, but is there a similar focus on the compensation to coaches to maintain that distinction between amateur coaches and as opposed to coaches in the pro ranks?" Thomas asked.

Gorsuch made this point a major part of his argument against the NCAA in his opinion, writing that at the heart of its claims to promoting amateur sports is a business that rewards executives but not workers. The Ninth Circuit had struck down NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits schools could offer to student-athletes. At the same time, the court had upheld the league's rules about compensation related to athletic performance. The Supreme Court's ruling upholds both of those findings, allowing players greater access to academic perks such as laptops and internships that the league had previously barred ...

Gorsuch acknowledged that for fans of college sports, many of whom want to see student athletes treated like pro-athletes, the decision may not feel like a big enough win. But, Gorsuch wrote, the question of salaries was not before the court, and, just as the Ninth Circuit did not seek to answer it, neither would the Supreme Court. WaEx

Edited by tmcats at 13:47:12 on 06/21/21