NCAA v Alston

Why did they sue?

Alston sued the NCAA (and 11 Div 1 conferences) alleging they were violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act which prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce -Challenged the NCAA's many rules that restricted compensation for athletes -Stated that the NCAA limits on compensation affected interstate commerce

Case Facts

At the district court level, Alston argued that all of the NCAA's limits on compensation were unconstitutional -Court agreed that limits related to education were in violation of the Sherman Act, but those unrelated to education were left alone due to the inability to blur the line between professional and amateur -Both sides appealed the district court ruling, Alston to appeal the court leaving non-education limits alone and the NCAA to appeal the ruling that their education related limits were in violation -Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling -Then only the NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court, where they again attempted to reverse the ruling that their limits on educational expenses violated section 1 -Alston didn't renew their argument that non-education related expenses were violating section 1, only argued about education related ones

Who are the original defendants?

Initially, the defendants were the NCAA as well as 11 other Div 1 conferences. In the Supreme Court case however, the NCAA brought the case, making them the petitioner and Alston the respondent

Who are the original plaintiffs?

Initially, the plaintiffs were Alston, a former RB at WVU, as well as other former collegiate athletes. In the Supreme Court Case, the NCAA were the petitioners as they were the ones who brought the case

What judge wrote this decision?

Justice Gorsuch 9-0 unanimous decision

Justice Kavanaugh's Concurring Opinion

Kavanaugh agreed with the ruling but wanted to take it a step further -Argues that all of the NCAA's limits on compensation violated Section 1 Argues for 3 reasons: -The court doesn't address the legality of the NCAA's remaining compensation rules -While the Supreme Court doesn't weigh in on the legality of these rules, the court's decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward (subject to rule of reason analysis) -There are serious questions whether these remaining limits on compensation can pass a rule of reason scrutiny test A MONOPSONY CANNOT LAUNDER ITS PRICE FIXING OF LABOR BY CALLING IT PRODUCT DEFINITION

Case Precedent

NCAA v Board of Regents of Univ of Okla -NCAA limited college football teams to 1 televised game per year bc they feared people wouldn't attend games if they had more -College football association made an agreement to allow for more games to be televised, then NCAA stated they would take disciplinary action against any school that did. -Antitrust case was taken stating this violated sherman act, Oklahoma won -However, NCAA uses this case to argue that they're antitrust exempt because of language used in the case stating their rules are in line with the Sherman act

What court decided this case?

The US Supreme Court, decided on June 21st 2021

What was the outcome?

The district courts ruling that the NCAA's limits on education related expenses were unconstitutional was affirmed by the Supreme Court

How are they defending this case?

They argued that in order to protect student athletes and the idea of amateurism, the rules are necessary and therefore not unreasonably restraining trade -Also claimed that they're not violating antitrust law because they're a joint venture who must collaborate together to offer a product as unique as intercollegiate athletics -Gorsuch states that even if NCAA is a joint venture, it has monopoly power within their market and their comopensation limits are subject to the rule of reason analysis

Big Issue at hand

To what extent do the restrictions in the NCAA's labor market yield benefits in its consumer markets that can be attained using substantially less restrictive means. Basically, arguing whether these restrictions are necessary to maintain these benefits.

Rule of reason analysis

Used to determine the legality of agreements that may restrict competition. Courts examine both the negative and positive effects of an agreement before determining if it violates antitrust law -Utilizes a "three-step burden shifting" framework -plaintiff initially has to prove the restraint has a substantial anticompetitive effect -if proved, defendant has to show a procompetitive rationale for the restraint -If proven, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the procompetitive efficiencies can be achieved with less restrictive means