The Alston Decision And Its Importance On NIL

In NCAA v. Alston, decided in 2021, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits for student-athletes violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The challenged rules limited benefits such as scholarships for graduate or vocational programs, payments for academic tutoring, and paid post-eligibility internships.

Applying the rule of reason, the Supreme Court concluded that while preserving consumer demand for college sports is a legitimate pro-competitive objective, the NCAA’s restraints were more restrictive than necessary to achieve that purpose. The Court affirmed the district court’s injunction, which prohibited the NCAA from enforcing limits on education-related benefits, while leaving intact restrictions on non-education-related compensation.

An interesting part of this opinion is Justice Kavanaugh concurring opinion. While Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the Court’s unanimous opinion, he wrote separately to underscore that the NCAA’s broader compensation rules are also legally suspect. His main points were:

NCAA’s model is problematic: He questioned the legality of the NCAA’s entire system of restricting athlete compensation, noting that “the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”

No antitrust exemption: He emphasized that the NCAA is not entitled to special treatment under antitrust law simply because it oversees college sports.

Athlete compensation is suppressed: He criticized the NCAA for fixing wages at artificially low levels, while coaches, athletic directors, and conference officials earn millions.

Future litigation likely: While the Court’s holding was limited to education-related benefits, Kavanaugh signaled that broader challenges to the NCAA’s compensation limits could succeed under antitrust principles.

In essence, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence served as a warning shot - the Court was unanimous on education-related benefits, but he suggested that the entire concept of restricting athlete pay may not survive future antitrust scrutiny. 

The opinion ultimately weakened - significantly - the NCAA's reliance on "amateurism" as an antitrust defense and set the stage for the subsequent suspension of NCAA restrictions on athletes' ability to profit from their name, image and likeness.