Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20  NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON 

Opinion of the Court 

similar judgment here.

To be sure, the NCAA isn’t without a reply.  It notes that, 
in the course of reaching its judgment about television mar-
keting restrictions, the Board of Regents Court commented 
on student-athlete compensation restrictions.  Most partic-
ularly, the NCAA highlights this passage: 

“The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of 
a  revered  tradition  of  amateurism  in  college  sports.
There can be no question but that it needs ample lati-
tude to play that role, or that the preservation of the
student-athlete in higher education adds richness and
diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely con-
sistent with the goals of the Sherman Act.”  Id., at 120. 

See also id., at 101, 102 (the NCAA “seeks to market a par-
ticular  brand  of  football”  in  which  “athletes  must  not  be 
paid, must be required to attend class, and the like”).  On 
the NCAA’s telling, these observations foreclose any rule of
reason review in this suit. 

Once more, we cannot agree.  Board of Regents may sug-
gest  that  courts  should  take  care  when  assessing  the
NCAA’s restraints on student-athlete compensation, sensi-
tive  to  their  procompetitive  possibilities.  But  these  re-
marks do not suggest that courts must reflexively reject all 
challenges to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions.  Stu-
dent-athlete compensation rules were not even at issue in 
Board  of  Regents.  And  the  Court  made  clear  it  was  only
assuming  the  reasonableness  of  the  NCAA’s  restrictions:
“It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory con-
trols of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering compe-
tition  among  amateur  athletic  teams  and  are  therefore
procompetitive . . . .”  Id., at 117 (emphasis added).  Accord-
ingly, the Court simply did not have occasion to declare—
nor  did  it  declare—the  NCAA’s  compensation  restrictions
procompetitive both in 1984 and forevermore. 

Our confidence on this score is fortified by still another