Supreme Court justices expressed concern Wednesday with the NCAA’s limits on benefits for student athletes, but several said they worried that giving courts more authority to regulate those rules could undermine the essential amateur nature of college sports.
“How do we know we’re not destroying the game as it exists?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked during 90 minutes of oral argument by telephone conference call, just as the annual basketball ritual known as March Madness nears its finale.
The case did not directly involve the hot-button issue of whether student athletes should be paid. But the outcome could determine how much authority the NCAA will have in restricting such payments in the future, which student athletes say are long overdue.
“This could be the gateway to answering the question of whether student athletes can be paid to play,” said Gabe Feldman, an expert in sports law at Tulane Law School.
Representing the NCAA, Washington, D.C., lawyer Seth Waxman told the court that what’s at stake is the essential nature of college athletics.
“For more than a hundred years, the distinct character of college sports has been that it’s played by students who are amateurs, which is to say that they are not paid for their play,” Waxman said.
A federal appeals court ruled last year that the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits — such as computers, musical instruments and postgraduate scholarships or paid internships — violate anti-trust laws. The ruling was a victory for current and former athletes in Division I basketball and the Football Bowl Subdivision, led by former West Virginia University running back Shawne Alston and former University of California center Justine Hartman.
Several members of the Supreme Court said Wednesday that the NCAA has allowed the world of college athletics to become a multibillion-dollar enterprise at the expense of the student athletes.
“You put a lot of weight on amateurism,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. “Is there a similar focus on compensation of coaches?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the federal antitrust law giving the NCAA authority to set limits on benefits “should not be a cover for exploitation of student athletes.”
Antitrust law is involved, because the schools compete aggressively for the best players and coaches. The courts have said that even though the NCAA’s limits on student benefits restrain some of that competition, the rules help preserve amateur status.
But the justices also seemed concerned about allowing courts to micromanage the NCAA’s rulemaking.
“I worry about judges getting into the business of how amateur sports are run,” said Justice Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice John Roberts said if the courts can keep changing the rules, “It’s like a game of Jenga,” which involves wooden blocks assembled into a tower. “You pull out one log and everything’s fine, then another and another. And all of a sudden the whole thing comes crashing down.”
The justices will decide the case — the first involving college sports to come before the court in more than 35 years — by early July.
