March Madness in the U.S. Supreme Court

A recurring topic returned for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2021: Under American antitrust laws, how much control does a league of owners have over providing compensation to athletes? The matter once again raised the popular question of who is an “amateur.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and schools say limiting payments to students allows them to protect the sacred concept of amateurism. The students argue the NCAA is unlawfully suppressing pay to the athletes while member schools collect billions of dollars.

NCAA athletes call foul

Shawne Alston played football for the University of West Virginia and is one of a class of former student athletes who sued the NCAA and its “Power Five” conferences in 2019 under the antitrust laws. Based on current NCAA rules, a student athlete may not receive more than $5,980 in cash payments per year in addition to “education-related benefits.” The class is challenging the regulation of what a student athlete may receive in the latter set of benefits.

Covered costs. In terms of education-related benefits, the NCAA’s bylaws allow a school to provide "full grant-in-aid,” which encompasses “tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to attendance at the institution up to [a cap] . . . as calculated by each institution’s financial aid office.“ The governing legislation permits a wide range of other payments above the cash cap (both related and unrelated to education). Without losing their eligibility, student athletes may receive: