Sport: NCAA has rough day at Supreme Court as justices question whether amateurism concept holds up at all

Techies give an old fashioned Supreme Court decent marks in coding case

  Techies give an old fashioned Supreme Court decent marks in coding case Programmers say the Supreme Court, often teased for its ambivalence toward technology, got it (mostly) right in describing some nuances of software.Often teased for their ambivalence toward technology – Chief Justice John Roberts once asked a lawyer in 2010 to explain the difference between an email and a pager – the justices this week were forced to grapple with complicated programming concepts in a multi-billion-dollar copyright dispute between tech giants Google and Oracle.

The highest court in the land had questions, lots of questions on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal in the NCAA v. Alston case. Mostly, the justices were asking questions of the NCAA in the latest and perhaps biggest legal challenge the association has faced.

a group of people walking in front of United States Supreme Court Building: Will the Supreme Court hear the O'Bannon case? © Provided by CBS Sports

Will the Supreme Court hear the O'Bannon case?

The NCAA did not fare well in the oral arguments over the its ability to regulate education-based benefits. The far-reaching implications of the case could further limit the NCAA's already shrinking power base.

In the moment, it's still a perception battle as there won't be an actual Supreme Court decision until late June. And even then, a Democratic-controlled Congress could put forth NIL legislation that would be much more expansive than anything the NCAA is considering.

Democrats 'to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices'

  Democrats 'to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices' The Supreme Court will expand from its current nine members to 13 under a plan, which The Intercept said will be unveiled on Thursday in both the House and the Senate.The proposal, reported by The Intercept, is likely to spark strong protest from Republicans, who warned during the election that Joe Biden would try and change the court's composition.

It was fascinating to hear the Supreme Court dig down into the elemental conflict that is college sports -- a for-profit business model overseen by a not-for-profit behemoth (NCAA) pushing a version of "amateurism" that exists nowhere else in the world.

"Why does the NCAA get to define what 'pay' is?" asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Why, indeed? At that point, the NCAA was being hung by its own rules manual that states over and over that the athlete experience should be as close to the regular student experience as possible.

The regular student can have its own YouTube channel, be in a band, earn thousands from social media exposure. NCAA athletes are limited to room, books, board, tuition and cost of attendance.

Nearly all the justices poked at the NCAA's reasoning for limiting compensation.

Biden unveils commission to study changes at the Supreme Court after pressure from progressives

  Biden unveils commission to study changes at the Supreme Court after pressure from progressives The push for change at the Supreme Court comes as liberals have stewed over President Trump's three nominations, giving conservatives a 6-3 edge.Biden promised to name the commission as a candidate amid an outcry from Democrats over President Donald Trump's nomination of three Supreme Court justices and a bevy of lower court judges that significantly tilted the federal judiciary to the right.

"Antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of the student-athletes, so that is a concern, an overarching concern here," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Here is a breakdown of what went down Wednesday.

Who won?

For now, it's the appellees. Alston's lawyers contend those education-based benefits should be uncapped. That's what the Ninth District Circuit Court ruled last year. The NCAA's defense has been asserting that district Judge Claudia Wilken misapplied the law in her decision while simultaneously holding up its amateurism model in the process.

Judging from the questions from the justices, six of whom are conservative, it did not go well for the nation's powerful amateur body.

"That was pretty damning for the NCAA," said Alicia Jessop, a Pepperdine University law professor.

Jessop puts the projected Supreme Court vote from 5-4 to 7-2 in favor of Alston. The final ruling will come down in late June. NCAA attorney Seth Waxman was put on the defensive by the Supreme Court several times after using the now-familiar argument that any more benefits for athletes would destroy amateurism.

Fact check: Justice Clarence Thomas didn't say Section 230 is unconstitutional

  Fact check: Justice Clarence Thomas didn't say Section 230 is unconstitutional Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not say Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional in a recent concurring opinion.In a 12-page concurring opinion on the court’s dismissal of a case alleging then-President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking Twitter users, Thomas wrote of the “enormous control over speech” that large social media platforms hold. He compared them to communications utilities regulated by the government.

"We have looked at these claims from the NCAA over and over again that each loss was going to hurt college sports and destroy this revered tradition. It's never happened," said Alston attorney Jeffrey Kessler.

What does it mean?

The NCAA has basically asserted that, if its appeal is not granted, the sky will fall on amateur athletics. It says there will be a pay-for-play system that looks a lot like professional sports.

What the NCAA fails to recognize is that we've lived through a professional environment for decades without amateurism collapsing. It started the moment the NCAA allowed free scholarships in 1956. Those were available only for athletes due to their talent.

The system continues today. Former Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling was awarded $740,000 by his country (Singapore) for winning an Olympic medal. Former Oklahoma quarterback Kyle Murray turned professional in baseball -- signing a $5 million contract -- while leading the Sooners to the College Football Playoff.

The NCAA itself negotiates billion-dollar media rights and signs lucrative corporate sponsorships. Meanwhile, athletes' compensation is capped despite that free scholarship. The optics are not good.

The Supreme Court’s coming war with Joe Biden, explained

  The Supreme Court’s coming war with Joe Biden, explained The Supreme Court is poised to give itself a veto power over much of the Biden administration’s authority.On February 9, 2016 — the last Tuesday of Scalia’s life — the Supreme Court handed down an unexpected order announcing a stay of the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon emissions rules for many power plants. The vote was 5-4, along party lines, with Scalia joining his fellow conservatives in the majority.

None of the justices referenced the widely-recognized black market in recruiting that exists under the table that pays athletes exorbitant sums. The NCAA recognizes that underground income but has not been able to slow it to any degree via its enforcement department.

Kessler stressed that a favorable ruling would be limited only to what is on the table -- uncapping education-related expenses. That's being a bit myopic.

A ruling in favor of Alston would arguably be the NCAA's second-biggest court loss next to Board of Regents v. NCAA in 1984. That case is basically the reason we're here. It opened the spigot on the flow of billions of dollars in media rights into the system.

If that money wasn't there, the plaintiffs wouldn't be suing to get some of it and the NCAA wouldn't be appealing to keep amateurism status quo. For one reason, there wouldn't be enough money in the system for high-powered attorneys to huge fees from their clients.

Example: USA Today estimated the NCAA spent well over $200 million in legal fees to get Wednesday's moment with the Supreme Court.

If the NCAA fails in its appeal, college athletics won't necessarily go down pay-for-play road. Fan interest won't let it. For one, there is nothing about this case that suggests Alabama will stop getting the best players in recruiting and Toledo will suddenly become a national power.

NFL eyeing onsite offseason workouts; NFLPA prefers virtual setup

  NFL eyeing onsite offseason workouts; NFLPA prefers virtual setup The NFL indicated meetings will likely remain virtual for the foreseeable future, but this year’s offseason workouts are not expected to be fully virtual like they were in 2020. However, the union has offered pushback to an onsite offseason returning this year.As of now, teams can schedule onsite OTAs to begin April 19. This is, however, contingent on no offseason plan being agreed to between the NFL and NFLPA. The union has offered pushback to an onsite offseason returning this year, with Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reporting little progress has been made between the sides on this front.

What's next?

The NCAA had a chance to avoid this day back in 2009. That was when former UCLA forward Ed O'Bannon sued because he wasn't allowed to get a cut from the EA Sports basketball video game.

Almost everything you're reading today springs from that moment. Had the NCAA struck a group licensing deal with the athletes, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't be a battleground today. But the NCAA was as determined then to defend the amateurism model as it is today.

That means the association has to make a significant comeback after Wednesday. A conservative court reinforced by the previous administration seems to have done its job -- judging the case on its facts.

That doesn't necessarily mean the appellees will win. These are informed professional opinions on the outcome of Wednesday's events. Call it a legal Final Four breakdown. But there are signs that no matter what happens, the NCAA's influence and power are diminishing.

Even if the NCAA wins its appeal, as previously mentioned, there is speculation a Democratic Congress will fight back with expansive name, image and likeness legislation. The NCAA delayed NIL legislation in January because the Department of Justice wants to review it.

At the same time, the NCAA needs Congress' help to implement its version of NIL. For decades, the NCAA shied away from any federal intervention in its business. Now it can't seem to conduct business without the feds.

On its face, this is not a case about NCAA compensation. This is a case that explores in what can be covered in an athletic scholarship. As of now, that limit is $5,980 for things like computers and international study. Justice Elena Kagan said that figure seemed arbitrary.

She isn't the only one questioning the big picture.

"How do we know," Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "that we're not just destroying the game as it exists? Meaning we're being told by [the NCAA] that all of these education-related payments can become extravagant and, as a result, be viewed by the public as pay for play. Any fix would come after the fact, after the game has been -- after amateurism has been destroyed in college sports. How do we ensure that doesn't happen?"

"Destroying the game" strikes at the heart of the argument. Athletes have been earning exorbitant amounts of money for years. There is cost of attendance that ranges between $2,000-$5,000 per academic year. Bowl gifts are capped at $550. Schools are allowed to pay insurance premiums to protect players' draft value that are worth $80,000 or more.

"That," Justice John Roberts said, "sounds like pay for play."

The very issue the NCAA went to the Supreme Court to outlaw.

Make the Supreme Court lots bigger. It's not a priesthood, it should represent America. .
A Supreme Court of 59 justices would cut down on politics, mystique and the Ivy League, and be more like the legislature it's now called on to be.That will outweigh any justices Trump is able to appoint between now and then, even if he gets a couple of additional opportunities. The result will be a Supreme Court firmly in left-leaning hands for a generation.

See also