Antitrust 101: NCAA v. Alston

Today, we are going to discuss something that Wisconsin is great at, sports, and that specific case, NCAA versus Alston, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 2021.

And this is one of those cases where you want to pay close attention to what the court decides here, because Alston has become shorthand for a much larger subsequent revolution in college sports.

So, minor spoiler, the Supreme Court does not hold that college athletes must be paid salaries.

It didn't decide whether athletes are employees, and it did not decide the legality of all of the NCAA compensation rules.

Issue before the court is much narrower.

Whether the NCAA could restrict certain education-related benefits that its member schools could provide to student-athletes.

But the way that the court gets there, and particularly Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, which we'll hear in just a moment, we know now has enormous implications for the NCAA's traditional business model.

But before we do that, a couple of facts about our plaintiff respondent here.

Mr. Austin was not just some theoretical student-athlete invented for an antitrust hypothetical.

He was a running back for West Virginia University.

In 2011, he led the team with 12 rushing touchdowns, and he scored two touchdowns in West Virginia's Orange Bowl appearance against Clemson.

So, our named plaintiff, very real Division I football player, playing in the enormously lucrative college sports industry.

Second, this case gives us the wonderfully strange spectacle of an antitrust lawsuit involving things like, can you get a laptop or study abroad expenses or even a paid internship? Those were among the education-related benefits the lower court said could no longer be categorically prohibited.

So if you've ever wondered whether an antitrust case can turn on whether a football player can get on a laptop, apparently this is just that case.

So Emma, why don't you tell us how we got here?