NCAA Antitrust Case Argued In Supreme Court

Speaker 1: 00:00 Gonzaga and Baylor will battle for the NCAA championship on the basketball court tonight. Meanwhile, there is a different battle happening in the Supreme court and that battle is overcompensation for student athletes and whether or not the NCAA is violating antitrust laws by limiting how much compensation student athletes can receive. This is all part of a big effort to change a billion dollar sports industry that pays players, nothing, California galvanized the effort with the fair pay to play act legislation, San Diego attorney Lynn Simon, who is also an adjunct law professor at USD, specializing in sports and law help to craft Lynn. Welcome to the show. Speaker 2: 00:41 Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Speaker 1: 00:43 So can you remind us of California's fair pay to play act and how it's evolving? Speaker 2: 00:49 Sure. California's bill passed about a year ago, but it doesn't come into effect until January of 2023 requires that all colleges in California state schools and private schools allow their athletes to monetize their names, images, and likenesses. So it doesn't require the schools to pay them any salaries or anything, but it requires the schools to get out of the way and let them earn money on the side from, uh, advertising, uh, summer camps, anything they want, that's prohibited by NCAA rules, but California has taken a different Speaker 1: 01:25 And last week, the Supreme court heard arguments over whether or not the NCAAs limits for student athletes violates antitrust laws. The NCAA faced some skepticism from justices during arguments. Can you talk about that? Speaker 2: 01:38 The NCAA lost this case in the trial court and the appellate court. Although the courts didn't change the NCAA system that much, but the NCA went to the Supreme court, almost offended that they had to answer these kinds of questions and asked for special treatment. I asked to be treated very differently than for example, the NFL or the NBA would be treated in antitrust cases against them, which are relatively frequent or at least not unusual. And they didn't get much sympathy. The argument that the NCA is special and need special rules got nowhere. And the courts pretty much said, go talk to Congress if you want a special. Speaker 1: 02:16 And when lawyers representing athletes presented their case, they too faced skepticism. What was the concern from justices there? Speaker 2: 02:23 I think their concern was that the NCAA has been sued twice in the last eight years, both times in federal court, in Oakland, both times, there was a long, expensive trial, and both times they lost, but they lost sort of small. And I think the NCA, his argument that they're going to be sort of nibbled to death by having an expensive and distracting lawsuit every two or three years for the rest of their existence. Even though they're not, they're not losing big, big issues in this case did get the court's attention. A court doesn't want the federal court to micromanage the NCAA and to micromanaged college sports. And it, I think was hoping the system would work like it used to, which is the NCAA or the NFL, but they might get sued every 10 years about something big. So that's the concern too many cases. Hmm. Speaker 1: 03:11 You know, what's so wrong with a pay to play system. And how might that change? The way college sports are played Speaker 2: 03:18 Well, pay to play, uh, is kind of used in two ways. So let me give you a quick two-part answer. I think there's nothing wrong with what California did, which is to allow the students to, to obtain third-party payments. I don't see the problem with a Stanford basketball star or a Stanford rower. You never heard of making a lot of money or a little money on the side. That's really not making them a professional athlete and it's not effecting Stanford's budget for title IX or anything else. Uh, and that's why California took that step. And didn't go further. Um, I may have a hand, if you ask the schools to pay the, the college pay, the students salaries, you get into a huge battle over how much and to whom, and you do have a title nine problem. If the basketball stars on the men's team get more than the women's team, all of the men generate more money. So paying them could be exorbitantly expensive, and it could be exorbitantly sensitive and difficult. Speaker 1: 04:17 Just getting by is tough for many college athletes. There's a large percentage of them who live below the poverty line. Can you talk a bit about what life is like for student athletes? Speaker 2: 04:29 Yeah, it's a, it, it, it's a very tricky area because you do have students with little or no family support with no family money and they're being dropped on a campus and they've got tuition room board books and maybe a fancy athletic program, but eating, going to the movies, you know, taking a friend to dinner and movies is all, maybe I'll be beyond their means when they're surrounded by fellow students who in some cases worship them as stars and they don't have two nickels to rub together. So there is a sense that particularly with the revenue sport athletes and the stars, but I think all the way down to just the role players, they ought to be getting a cut of what they're generating in some fashion. And how much is the NCAA pulling in billions and billions, but it's gotten so expensive to compete that the schools are spending billions and billions and the NCA argues that most of the schools are losing money on sports. Speaker 1: 05:26 Hmm. So ultimately, how do you think the court will rule? Speaker 2: 05:30 I think the court is going to rule technically as a legal matter in favor of the athletes, the athletes had a small win in the, in the trial court. They're entitled to more small kinds of compensation from the schools, but it has to be somehow related to their education. It has supplement their educational needs and expenses and not simply be paid for play. And that sounds pretty modest. And I think the court's going to say, that's fine. And then the is going to write an opinion with some other ideas for the future. And that's where the fight will be. Do they say don't, don't bring us these cases every year, or do they tell the NCAA to go to Congress and ask for help? It's not clear where they go, but I think the last sentence is going to say the opinion of the lower court is affirmed. Speaker 1: 06:14 I've been speaking with Lynn Simon, lawyer and adjunct professor at USD who specializes in sports and law. Lynn, thank you so much for joining us. Speaker 2: 06:23 Thank you again for having me, uh,