Sports Agent Says Supreme Court Ruled On Rare Example Of NCAA ‘On The Back Foot’ – .

Sports Agent Says Supreme Court Ruled On Rare Example Of NCAA ‘On The Back Foot’ – .

After the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a unanimous decision that the NCAA illegally restricted education-related benefits that could be used as compensation for student athletes, an athletics officer told Fox News that it’s just as rare for the college league to be essentially on their heels.

Athletic agent Doug Eldridge joined “Your World” and called the development decision “significant” for varsity athletics.

“The fact that we get a unanimous decision seems quite rare these days from the Supreme Court and even less so,” he said. “They found the lower court ruling that the artificial caps or restrictions or barriers to education provision were an antitrust violation… More importantly, for your question, it arguably opens the floodgates to a bigger problem. , which compensates student athletes for the second part, not students but rather the athletic benefits they bring to college. “

Several current and former student athletes had sued the NCAA and 11 conferences, claiming the rules restricting compensation violated antitrust laws. A lower court ruling upheld NCAA rules generally prohibiting payment to student-athletes, while allowing education-related aid. The students accepted him, but the NCAA fought him and eventually took the case to the High Court.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court “cannot agree” with what he called a “kind of court-ordered immunity” proposed by the NCAA under the terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

Eldridge said the move could put a “NONE” benefit or an image and likeness of the name on the horizon for athletes.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen the NCAA on its back. They not only have fantastic legal teams, they also have fantastic marketing teams. For example, the name or nickname of “student athlete”, which was created from the air by the legal team in concert with some market analysts to preserve the notion of amateurism, “he said. for follow-up.

Eldridge explained that the “student athlete” was essentially about separating these athletes from professional sports players.


“The last time the Supreme Court ruled was in 1985. It was at that time that it removed the cap on the number of teams that can be broadcast on national television”, a- he declared. “When that happened, revenues exploded creating a billion dollar industry. This is the beginning, not the end. “

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here