panel is scheduled to meet this week to discuss how players could profit off their renown, but it is not clear when members will vote, particularly in the wake of Monday’s ruling. And in a setback last week for the association, senior members of Congress said that they did not expect to strike a deal for a federal standard before July 1.Ī powerful N.C.A.A. has not agreed to extend similar rights to players nationwide. Less than two weeks before some of the new laws are scheduled to take effect in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas and allow athletes to make endorsements and monetize their social media presences, the N.C.A.A. The N.C.A.A.’s response to the pressure routinely rising out of statehouses since 2019 has been, in effect, to stall. Next week, student-athletes in at least six states are poised to be allowed to make money off their personal fame - not because of action by the N.C.A.A., but because of state officials who grew tired of the industry’s decades-long efforts to limit the rights of players. already embroiled in that question as well. The case before the Supreme Court did not directly touch on the issue of whether athletes may earn money for the use of their names, images and likenesses, but the decision arrived on Monday with the N.C.A.A. The organization sets the rules for roughly half a million college athletes in the United States.īut as television rights deals have swelled across the decades, sending billions of dollars into the association and its member conferences each year and fueling arms races for top-notch facilities and big-name coaches, the model has come under increasing legal and political scrutiny. Even top athletes in high-profile sports like football and basketball are limited to receiving no more than a scholarship, books, room and board and, more recently, other costs of attending college, a figure that can include travel and other living expenses. has largely defended the principle that students should play sports as amateurs. Throughout its 115-year history, the N.C.A.A. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. Kavanaugh seemed to invite such a challenge. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. But its logic suggested that the court may be open to a head-on challenge to the ban by the National Collegiate Athletic Association on paying athletes for their participation in sports that bring billions of dollars in revenue to American colleges and universities. The decision concerned only payments and other benefits related to education. could not bar relatively modest payments to student-athletes, a decision that underscored the growing challenges to a college sports system that generates huge sums for schools but provides little or no compensation to the players. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that the N.C.A.A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |