Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 16

12  NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON 

Opinion of the Court 

challenged  set  of  rules.”  Id.,  at  1104.  The  district  court 
emphasized that the NCAA must have “ample latitude” to 
run  its  enterprise  and  that  courts  “may  not  use  antitrust 
laws to make marginal adjustments to broadly reasonable
market restraints.”  Ibid. (internal quotation marks omit-
In  light  of  these  standards,  the  court  found  the 
ted). 
student-athletes had met their burden in some respects but 
not  others.    The  court  rejected  the  student-athletes’  chal-
lenge to NCAA rules that limit athletic scholarships to the
full cost of attendance and that restrict compensation and 
benefits unrelated to education.  These may be price-fixing
agreements, but the court found them to be reasonable in
light  of  the  possibility  that  “professional-level  cash  pay-
ments . . . could blur the distinction between college sports 
and professional sports and thereby negatively affect con-
sumer demand.”  Ibid. 

The  court  reached  a  different  conclusion  for  caps  on 
education-related benefits—such as rules that limit schol-
arships for graduate or vocational school, payments for ac-
ademic tutoring, or paid posteligibility internships.  Id., at 
1088.  On no account, the court found, could such education-
related benefits be “confused with a professional athlete’s 
salary.”  Id., at 1083.  If anything, they “emphasize that the 
recipients are students.”  Ibid.  Enjoining the NCAA’s re-
strictions on these forms of compensation alone, the court
concluded, would be substantially less restrictive than the 
NCAA’s  current  rules  and  yet  fully  capable  of  preserving
consumer demand for college sports.  Id., at 1088. 

The court then entered an injunction reflecting its find-
ings and conclusions.  Nothing in the order precluded the 
NCAA from continuing to fix compensation and benefits un-
related to education; limits on athletic scholarships, for ex-
ample, remained untouched.  The court enjoined the NCAA
only from limiting education-related compensation or bene-
fits  that  conferences  and  schools  may  provide  to  student-
athletes playing Division I football and basketball.  App. to