Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s Opinion Signals Massive Restructuring for College Athletics
In a groundbreaking move that sent shockwaves through the world of college athletics, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a scathing opinion on June 21, 2021, signaling a massive restructuring for the NCAA. The case in question, NCAA v. Alston, resulted in a unanimous 9-0 decision against the NCAA, allowing student-athletes to receive academic award money they earn. However, Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion went beyond this specific case, warning the NCAA that its remaining compensation rules could face serious scrutiny under antitrust laws.
Kavanaugh criticized the NCAA’s argument of “amateurism” as circular and unpersuasive, suggesting that it was merely a guise to control labor and fix costs. He made it clear that price-fixing labor is a textbook antitrust problem and that the NCAA was not above the law. This opinion served as a wake-up call for college sports, signaling the end of the status quo and paving the way for significant changes.
The implications of Kavanaugh’s opinion are far-reaching. It opens the door for athletes to be treated as employees, revenue sharing among schools, and even a potential reduction in the number of teams capable of competing, particularly in football. The old model of college athletics, which has been cherished by administrators, coaches, and fans alike, is no longer sustainable in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Despite this clear warning from Kavanaugh, college sports leaders continued to resist change. They focused on establishing outdated “guardrails” and minor tweaks, futilely lobbying Congress for salvation, and bemoaning the transition as the “Wild, Wild West.” However, their efforts were in vain. The Supreme Court had made its stance clear, and the NCAA needed to address its deep-rooted issues internally.
Finally, on Friday, more than two and a half years after Kavanaugh’s warning, the Big Ten and the SEC, the two most influential conferences in college sports, formed a joint advisory group. While this group does not have the authority to enact change, it serves as a consulting body that could potentially morph into a new NCAA. With mounting pressures and time running out, a smaller group of major stakeholders is taking charge to make necessary decisions.
The outcome of this joint advisory group remains uncertain, but it is a step in the right direction. The hope is that it will bring about changes that satisfy Kavanaugh and prevent further interference from the Supreme Court. The alternative is a college sports landscape without rules, where even basic tenets of sports are up in the air. Unlimited transfers and eligibility could become the norm, and any restrictions on trade could be deemed violations.
The NCAA, with its unwieldy structure and lack of trust among its member schools, has been plagued by inertia. It has focused on the past, accumulating lawsuits instead of addressing the challenges and opportunities of the present era. The Big Ten/SEC partnership, while not ideal for all of college sports, may be the only viable alternative at this point.
This pivotal week also saw the NCAA enforcement staff investigating Tennessee over an NIL inducement case that seemed trivial compared to the larger issues at hand. The school responded vehemently, calling the investigation ill-conceived and reliant on outdated booster bylaws. This incident further highlighted the disconnect between the NCAA’s staff and what is happening at the campus level regarding NIL.
In response to this investigation, the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, seeking to end any rules against NIL collectives. This move was widely supported by fans who have lost faith in the NCAA’s ability to enforce its own rules consistently. It is clear that the NCAA needs to shift its focus towards finding solutions to organize college athletics in the NIL era.
While it may be late in the game, the SEC/Big Ten advisory group is determined to do just that. With the Supreme Court looming and lawsuits piling up, it is crucial for college sports to adapt to the changing landscape. The time for action is now, and this joint effort could be the catalyst for a much-needed transformation.
In conclusion, Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion has set the stage for a massive restructuring of college athletics. The NCAA’s old model is no longer viable, and change is inevitable. The Big Ten/SEC advisory group represents a glimmer of hope for a more organized and sustainable future. It is a race against time, but with the right decisions and collaboration, college sports can navigate this new era successfully.
