Petitioner’s concern is that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which arguably created a much narrower version of amateurism and opened the potential for an annual $5,980 cash award to student-athletes, would blur any line of demarcation between college and professional sports. Waxman also emphasized the Court’s own prior characterization of amateurism as a procompetitive benefit of the NCAA’s product. Attorney for the NCAA, Seth Waxman, noted that this unique differentiator between college and professional sports can only be achieved through some agreement, which is a reason why the Rule of Reason test, instead of a “per se” analysis, applies in this case. The NCAA argued that the uniqueness of its product-the amateur status of student-athletes-compels antitrust deference. The court’s analysis found that the lower court properly applied the Rule of Reason test and properly held that the NCAA’s restrictions on non-cash benefits related to education violated the Sherman Act. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order in Alston, holding that the NCAA could no longer enforce rules restricting certain education-related benefits that its member institutions could offer to student-athletes.

Almost seven years later, Alston represents a culmination of years of antitrust litigation for the NCAA and a push for the expansion of economic rights for collegiate athletes. Shawne Alston, the lead plaintiff who represents a class of former student-athletes, filed the original complaint in 2014. Alston asks whether the NCAA’s restrictions on compensation for student-athletes are violative of federal antitrust law. This article provides a comprehensive summary of that argument. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case involving the NCAA for the first time in nearly 40 years. Mamarked an important moment in the history of college sports.

Alton szeto squidman