Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

Pet. for Cert. in No. 20–512, p. 167a, ¶1.  The court’s injunc-
tion further specified that the NCAA could continue to limit
cash awards for academic achievement—but only so long as 
those limits are no lower than the cash awards allowed for 
athletic  achievement  (currently  $5,980  annually).    Id.,  at 
168a–169a, ¶5; Order Granting Motion for Clarification of 
Injunction in No. 4:14–md–02541, ECF Doc. 1329, pp. 5–6 
(ND Cal., Dec. 30, 2020).  The court added that the NCAA 
and its members were free to propose a definition of com-
pensation or benefits “ ‘related to education.’ ”  App. to Pet. 
for  Cert.  in  No.  20–512,  at  168a,  ¶4.  And  the  court  ex-
plained  that  the  NCAA  was  free  to  regulate  how  confer-
ences and schools provide education-related compensation
and benefits.  Ibid.  The court further emphasized that its
injunction applied only to the NCAA and multi-conference 
agreements—thus allowing individual conferences (and the
schools that constitute them) to impose tighter restrictions
if they wish.  Id., at 169a, ¶6.  The district court’s injunction
issued in March 2019, and took effect in August 2020. 

Both sides appealed.  The student-athletes said the dis-
trict court did not go far enough; it should have enjoined all 
of  the  NCAA’s  challenged  compensation  limits,  including
those “untethered to education,” like its restrictions on the 
size  of  athletic  scholarships  and  cash  awards.    In re  Na-
tional  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.  Athletic  Grant-in-Aid  Cap 
Antitrust  Litig.,  958  F. 3d  1239,  1263  (CA9  2020).    The 
NCAA, meanwhile, argued that the district court went too 
far  by  weakening  its  restraints  on  education-related  com-
pensation and benefits.  In the end, the court of appeals af-
firmed  in  full,  explaining  its  view  that  “the  district  court
struck the right balance in crafting a remedy that both pre-
vents anticompetitive harm to Student-Athletes while serv-
ing the procompetitive purpose of preserving the popularity 
of college sports.”  Ibid.