From The Basketball Court To The Supreme Court, It’s Time For Tip-Off
March 31, 2021
THE BALL IS IN THEIR COURT
|With March Madness well under way (GO BRUINS!), the timing couldn’t be more perfect for the case before the Supreme Court today. Justices will hear a dispute over whether colleges should reward Division I student-athletes who play basketball and football. Jessica Gresko with the Associated Press reports, “The NCAA says if the former college students who brought the case win, it could erase the distinction between professional and college sports. Under current NCAA rules, students can’t be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA defends its rules as necessary to preserving the amateur nature of college sports. But if the Supreme Court sides with the former students, those caps on educational benefits could go away.”
#NOTNCAAPROPERTY
|This weekend the NCAA’s March Madness tournament will hold its men’s and women’s championship games, and some of the players have sought to use this month of heightened attention to pressure the organization over its compensation policy using the hashtag #NotNCAAProperty. For years the NCAA has resisted efforts to allow payments to go to players, wanting to protect the “amateur” quality of its games. It’s gradually allowed larger payments to some athletes, including the full cost of attendance scholarship. Tucker Higgins with CNBC explains, “At the heart of the student athletes’ case is the allegation that the NCAA is acting hypocritically, raking in money while underpaying athletes in the name of ‘amateurism.’ In fact, they argue, the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related payments are ‘cost-cutting measures, plain and simple.'”
A WIN IS A WIN
|The justices today will consider whether a ruling would allow colleges to offer Division I football and basketball players academic-related perks, including scholarships for graduate degrees, paid postgraduate internships and computers and other types of equipment related to education. Rick Maese with The Washington Post writes, “The NCAA lost its last major showdown at the Supreme Court nearly 40 years ago: NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. But it came away from that case with a valuable concession that the NCAA was unlike other businesses and ‘needs ample latitude’ to maintain ‘a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports.’ That Supreme Court opinion has served as the NCAA’s trump card for years in batting down legal challenges, and it was mentioned 66 times in the NCAA’s recent 62-page brief and another 22 times in its follow-up brief. Lawyers representing the NCAA say Board of Regents makes clear that the court has already bestowed on the NCAA the ability to determine who’s eligible to play college sports. Those representing the players will argue the citation is overstated, misused and not applicable.”
GET THE BALL ROLLING
|Pete Williams with NBC News notes the NCAA case does not directly involve the question of whether student-athletes should be paid. Instead, the justices must determine how much authority the NCAA has to restrict payments in the future. “What’s at stake, the NCAA says, is its ability to maintain a distinction between college and professional sports. The amateur status of college athletes, it says, serves an important benefit — higher education. But a brief filed by the players associations of the major professional leagues says the current rules ensure that everyone can benefit financially except the athletes, most of whom will never play professional sports. ‘The NCAA’s amateurism rules deprive them of their only opportunity in life to receive any economic benefits or enhanced education-related opportunities for their athletic talent and hard work,’ their filing said.”
OTHER NEWS
Supreme Court Looks At Consequences Of Falsely Calling Someone A Terrorist
The Wall Street Journal“A class-action lawsuit by some 8,000 consumers falsely labeled as potential terrorists on their credit reports appeared likely to survive following Supreme Court arguments Tuesday but several justices suggested not all of the individuals merited compensation.”
Texas Attorney General Backs Challenge To Harvard's Affirmative Action Policies At Supreme Court
CNN“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the justices got it wrong in 2016 when they upheld the University of Texas’ affirmative action practices, as state officials are now backing a lawsuit against Harvard’s use of race in admissions.”