- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of college athletes in the Alston vs. NCAA supreme court case.
- Justices ruled that the NCAA can't limit education-related benefits for college athletes.
- The ruling did not address whether athletes can be paid directly or profit from endorsements.
- See more stories on Insider's business page.
ON MONDAY, the US Supreme Court ruled against the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the Alston vs. NCAA case about limitations on compensation for student-athletes.
In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court's ruling, saying the NCAA can no longer ban colleges from providing student-athletes with education-related benefits.
"By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools," the decision read. "The national debate about amateurism in college sports is important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it. Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law."
The benefits include computers, paid internships, tutoring, study abroad programs, musical instruments, etc.
The case was led by former West Virginia University football player Shawne Alston and former University of California women's basketball player Justine Hartman.
The court found the limits violated "anti-trust principles," with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing in a concurring opinion that the NCAA's business model would be "flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."
The case was brought by former Division I men's and women's college athletes, who had accused the NCAA of violating anti-trust laws through its eligibility rules regarding compensation for student-athletes.
The NCAA previously had a $5,000 cap on what schools could provide above and beyond free tuition, room, and board, but now all schools can and likely offer more educational resources to their athletes.
One of the most significant education-related benefits that lawmakers and activists, including senator Cory Booker and ESPN college sports analyst Rod Gilmore, have been pushing for is unlimited tuition money for student-athletes that extends past their athletic eligibility.
Previous NCAA policy forbade universities from offering further scholarships to college athletes once their eligibility to play a sport ended, which resulted in lower graduation rates among athletes than the average student body at most universities.
The Supreme Court's decision now opens the door for other anti-trust lawsuits that former and current athletes may choose to file against the NCAA for capping their education-related benefits. That would also include paying student-athletes.
Black college football players, in particular, could have the makings for a class-action lawsuit, as graduation rates among that group have steadily declined to record-low numbers over the past three years, according to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports.