Oral Argument: National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston

Oral argument audio (including transcript) of case
[20-512] National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston
argued at the Supreme Court of the United States on Mar 31, 2021.

More information about the case:
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...
Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede... (including opinion)
Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.a...
Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-512

Video produced based on information and transcripts on oyez.org, licensed under a CC-BY-NC License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/....
Not affiliated with oyez.org or the Supreme Court.

Argued on Mar 31, 2021.
Decided on Jun 21, 2021.
Petitioner: National Collegiate Athletic Association
Respondent: Shawne Alston, et al.
Advocates:
Seth P. Waxman (for the Petitioners)
Jeffrey L. Kessler (for the Respondents)
Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Chapters
0:00:00 Seth P. Waxman
0:42:31 Jeffrey L. Kessler
1:09:22 Elizabeth B. Prelogar
1:30:17 Rebuttal: Seth P. Waxman

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
In NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma , 468 U.S. 85 (1984), the Supreme Court struck down the NCAA’s television plan as violating antitrust law, but in so doing it held that the rules regarding eligibility standards for college athletes are subject to a different and less stringent analysis than other types of antitrust cases. Because of this lower standard, the NCAA has long argued that antitrust law permits them to restrict athlete compensation to promote competitive equity and to distinguish college athletics from professional sports.

Several Division 1 football and basketball players filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, arguing that its restrictions on “non-cash education-related benefits,” violated antitrust law under the Sherman Act. The district court found for the athletes, holding that the NCAA must allow for certain types of academic benefits, such as “computers, science equipment, musical instruments and other tangible items not included in the cost of attendance calculation but nonetheless related to the pursuit of academic studies.” However, the district court held that the NCAA may still limit cash or cash-equivalent awards for academic purposes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, recognizing the NCAA’s interest in “preserving amateurism,” but concluding nevertheless that its practices violated antitrust law.

Question
Does the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violate federal antitrust law?

Conclusion
The NCAA’s rules restricting certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violate federal antitrust laws.  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch upheld the trial court’s ruling. The Court affirmed that the traditional “rule of reason” standard was appropriate in this case and rejected the NCAA’s call for a more deferential standard. Because the student-athletes who brought the lawsuit did not appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the NCAA’s rules “untethered to education,” the Court did not pass judgment on that aspect of the case.   

In affirming the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the Court clarified that a prior statement made in the 1984 case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma noting that the NCAA’s role in maintaining the “revered tradition of amateurism” was “entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act” was not a shield against all challenges to compensation restrictions, as such rules were not even at issue in that case. Instead, there was nothing so unique about the NCAA or amateur sports to alter the traditional method of analysis applied to claims of antitrust violations.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that while other rules limiting student-athlete compensation unrelated to academics remain in place because they were not properly before the Court, this decision makes clear that the same traditional “rule of reason” analysis would apply. He concluded, “there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny.”