Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

factor.  Whether  an  antitrust  violation  exists  necessarily
depends on a careful analysis of market realities.  See, e.g., 
American Express Co., 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–
12); 2B Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶500, p. 107 (2014).  If those 
market realities change, so may the legal analysis.

When it comes to college sports, there can be little doubt 
that the market realities have changed significantly since 
1984.  Since then, the NCAA has dramatically increased the 
amounts and kinds of benefits schools may provide to stu-
dent-athletes.  For example, it has allowed the conferences 
flexibility to set new and higher limits on athletic scholar-
ships.  D. Ct. Op., at 1064.  It has increased the size of per-
missible benefits “incidental to athletics participation.”  Id., 
at 1066.  And it has developed the Student Assistance Fund 
and the Academic Enhancement Fund, which in 2018 alone 
provided over $100 million to student-athletes.  Id., at 1072. 
Nor is that all that has changed.  In 1985, Division I football 
and basketball raised approximately $922 million and $41
million respectively.  Brief for Former NCAA Executives as 
Amici Curiae 7.  By 2016, NCAA Division I schools raised 
more than $13.5 billion.  Ibid.  From 1982 to 1984, CBS paid
$16 million per year to televise the March Madness Division
I men’s basketball tournament.  Ibid.  In 2016, those annual 
television rights brought in closer to $1.1 billion.  D. Ct. Op.,
at 1077, n. 20. 

Given the sensitivity of antitrust analysis to market re-
alities—and  how  much  has  changed  in  this  market—we 
think it would be particularly unwise to treat an aside in 
Board  of  Regents  as  more  than  that.    This  Court  may  be 
“infallible only because we are final,” Brown v. Allen, 344 
U. S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result), but 
those sorts of stray comments are neither. 

C 
The NCAA submits that a rule of reason analysis is inap-
propriate for still another reason—because the NCAA and