NCAA v. Alston: The Future Of Amateur Athletics

Today’s Email Is Sponsored By…

Friends,

By now, you have heard that the Supreme Court released a monumental opinion in a case concerning college athletes. You may have even read that it was a unanimous decision with a concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh that concludes by stating that the NCAA is not above the law.

But what exactly does the case mean for college athletes, and what changes could come because of the opinion?

With those questions in mind, I’ve asked my friend Darren Heitner to summarize the case and forecast the potential implications for today’s email. Darren is the founder of Heitner Legal — a premier sports & entertainment law firm — and has represented more than 50+ professional athletes & agents as legal counsel.

But more importantly, he’s become an incredible resource within the sports business community — I *highly* recommend following him on Twitter @DarrenHeitner.

Enjoy!

Who is Shawne Alston?

Shawne Alston played running back at West Virginia University. Leading up to his senior season, in 2012, he was in a position to battle for the starting running back position. In April 2013, he signed a contract with the New Orleans Saints but never logged a single statistic with the club.

Why is Shawne Alston’s name important?

Alston’s name has been in nearly every headline because he has technically served as the lead plaintiff in a combined antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA that was originally initiated in 2014. While Alston prevailed at the Supreme Court, it was about much more than Alston. The effects of the decision will reach every current and future college athlete.

What exactly was the case all about?

When it reached the Supreme Court, the case was strictly about the NCAA’s cap on academic-related costs and whether a lower court ruling should be upheld. It was the NCAA that decided to appeal prior decisions all the way to the Supreme Court level before it ultimately suffered a 9-0 loss with every Justice ruling against the Association. The Court held that the injunction placed on the NCAA, preventing it from limiting the amount of compensation that could be paid to college athletes for items related to academics, was valid and should not be overturned. It came to such a conclusion based on a review of Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act and, in essence, stated its concern that the NCAA acts as a cartel that illegally was restricting the amount of money that each school could offer to its athletes.

What was the case not about?

It was not about whether colleges can start offering Lamborghinis to college athletes and classify such benefits as being related to academics. Seriously, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, felt compelled to lay that out in the opinion. The decision was strictly related to the NCAA’s inability to further cap benefits to college athletes that are purely related to education. To the extent that, in the future, it is unclear what constitutes an educational-related expense, the parties can go back to the district court where the entire case began and seek clarification. The case was also technically not about name, image, and likeness, which are rights that college athletes are about to be able to commercially exploit in at least six states as of July 1. The decision makes zero references to those “NIL” rights. However, it is fair to assume that the way in which the decision was made will cause the NCAA to be extra cautious if/when it decides to involve itself in the regulation of NIL.

Why was the NCAA confident that it would prevail?

For almost forty years, the NCAA has believed that a comment from Justice Stevens in a 1984 case of NCAA v. Board of Regents has allowed it a great deal of wiggle room when it comes to antitrust law. In fact, Justice Stevens said that the NCAA should enjoy ample latitude under antitrust law when it comes to creating amateurism policy. Interestingly, the NCAA lost that case, but it did not prevent the Association from finding what it thought to be a diamond in the rough. Unfortunately for the NCAA, this Supreme Court was not buying it. The Court deemed Justice Stevens’ commentary as being dicta, said that it was non-binding, and noted that it was completely irrelevant to the Alston case.

What really stood out from the opinions?

The Justices focused on how much money people in college sports were making. Except for the athletes. They highlighted that NCAA President Mark Emmert earns $4 million per year, conference commissions earn somewhere between $2 and $5 million per year, athletic directors are making about $1 million per year, and the cream of the crop coaches are receiving upwards of $11 million per year. Meanwhile, the starting QB at an SEC school may earn the cost of attendance. The conclusion of the Justices was that “amateurism” is not a key element in the appeal of college sports.

But the final line of Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence was the money shot: The NCAA is not above the law.

Have a great day, and I’ll talk to everyone tomorrow.

If you enjoyed today’s email, please share it with your friends!

At 44,000+ subscribers, Huddle Up is quickly becoming one of the largest sports business communities on the internet — every addition helps :)

THE COMPANY COMMITTED TO IMPROVING SPORTS NUTRITION.

I’m constantly looking for ways to improve my energy and make the most out of my workout. But I’ve had a hard time finding the best, nutrient-rich products that are healthy and effective. Unfortunately, most products on the market are high in sugar and give a short energy spike and a quick burnout.

Luckily, I’ve partnered with UCAN — a premier nutrition product that professional athletes and teams use to achieve next-level performance and metabolic fitness. With SuperStarch, a patented food technology that doesn’t spike blood sugar, UCAN products deliver a slow and steady release of carbohydrates to the body and help stabilize energy for hours.

Still curious? Director of Performance Nutrition for the Detroit Lions, Katherine Hopkins, said "There are countless sports nutrition products out there, but it’s hard to actually tell if they work. UCAN is different. Athletes and coaches noticed the difference in their energy levels and concentration right away. In a world full of so many distractions that have the potential to hinder performance, I utilize UCAN with players and coaches to ensure that fueling isn’t one of them.”I just started using UCAN myself, and I already feel an improvement in my strength and energy levels throughout my entire workout. You can, too :)

As a Huddle Up reader, you get 25% off your first order.