Supreme Court rules for Athletes v. NCAA

“The Supreme Court on Monday handed a unanimous win to Division I college athletes in their legal fight against the National Collegiate Athletic Association over caps the organization sought to impose on compensation related to education. The top court voted 9-0 to affirm lower court rulings that prevented the NCAA from restricting payments to athletes for items such as musical instruments or as compensation for internships.”

I just saw that. UNANIMOUS!!!


This could have a BIG impact. Not sure it’s good for UH.

So Law obviously you know legal stuff better than most of us. Between this ruling in compensation and the Penn State punishment lawsuits in it’s current form is the NCAA just a completely neutered body at this point?

I don’t practice anti-trust law; never even so much as took a law school course in it, but based on Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in this case, which suggests that the NCAA might not be able to create any rules against compensation, this could make any pretext of amateurism in college football and men’s basketball a farce.

And if that happens, then it may not be good for UH, because P5 schools and blue bloods that have larger financial bases can probably come up with more to “compensate” their top stars in various ways than UH might.

Depending on how far subsequent court rulings take these holdings…a HUGE can of worms could be opening up.


Agree, could be very not good for UH or even college football in general. Just as well junk
the scholarship limits too. Heck, enrollment in courses may even become optional. Why
infringe upon an athletes ability to earn more by wasting that athletes time in forced classes.
Yes that’s an extreme positions, but not in favor of a toothless NCAA.


we are in a huge city, with rich folks every where, any NIL thing benefits us


Nothing wrong with compensating athletes with more money as long as it’s not million dollar contracts.

1 Like

That’s the problem though. Kavanaugh’s concurrence appears to suggest that might be NO limits…even for million dollar contracts…at least in theory.

As I said, we’ll have to see how subsequent courts treat this decision…but it could be bad for non-P5s and non-blue bloods, if it’s taken to its logical extreme.

No, if you read on the ruling it specifically says athletes getting and education and it precludes salaries. It basically, says that it puts the athletes on a level playing field with other students. You can get a laptop for instance as part of your educational compensation,
does it potentially raises costs, yes. But I think we should be able to keep up. I don’t see this as allowing for anything in terms of compensation…that would eliminate the athletes amateur status.
At that point the ncaa has teeth and can declare an athlete ineligible to compete.

Gorsuch’s lead opinion isn’t so expansive, but Kavanaugh’s concurrence is.

Not sure what the limits will ultimately be.

And even without salaries, programs with bigger budgets (i.e., P5s and blue bloods) can still, in theory, provide more in the way of “educational compensation” (to use your terminology) than, let’s say, UH would be able to.

Moreover, it remains to be seen just what would qualify as valid compensation, and what wouldn’t. Even under the rubric of “educational” compensation, there’s a lot of potential room for abuse via interpretation.

Seems to make the playing field even more uneven.


the bluebloods already get the top recruits and many already pay them, so that doesnt change much

i do think the gap grows but school like ours and smu, i think itll actually benefit us, we have donors and tons of “sponsorship” opportunities being in huge cities that care about football


Just think where this could go…suppose one school can afford to “compensate” all of its scholarship football players with the latest, top of the line, maximum processor and memoried MacBook Pros, IPads, and IPods, with all of the latest software packages pre-installed under the theory that this is related to their education, while a not so well-off school can’t.

I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see just how bad this could get…and where does it stop?

Can they provide each top jock with a scooter to get around campus to class?

Just sayin’!


It sounds good at first. Compensate the football players directly from the school with $2500 Mac book air pro whatever’s. But title 9 will peep its little head and say 100 men got that…now 100 women will too. Sure some schools, the very top of the chain, the profit programs will just give their women’s water polo team the same thing, but there will still be some balance. And guess what, a school like ours was never catching that top of the food chain anyways.


most p5 are cutting sports and struggling badly with budget issues, they all dont have overflowing funds…

i agree with your bigger points- disparity will grow overall, certain blue bloods like ND and USC could exploit this like crazy…

my minor point was that i think UH specifically will benefit… we paid dana 3mill as an entry salary, more than 1 mill more than an g5 had ever done before… we are the ND and USC of the g5 world. itll help us more than hurt us …for UH specifically…the utsa and tulsas of the world are a different story


Agree, there should be a limit to compensation.

1 Like

well according the the supreme court the limit is no salaries and educational compensation, otherwise it’s antitrust violation.

This creates a brave new world.

Not to mention that some compensation will be defined as “ Earned Income” which is Taxable.

Texas has no State Income Tax. Ditto Florida. California has a huge Tax.

Recruiting advantage to Texas and Florida schools?




I thought it was 4 million per year :open_mouth: duration of contract! (3.7 million first year)