Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

nature  of  the  amateurism  they  claim  consumers  insist 
upon.”  D. Ct. Op., at 1070.  And, given all this, the court 
struggled to ascertain for itself “any coherent definition” of 
the term, id., at 1074, noting the testimony of a former SEC 
commissioner that he’s “ ‘never been clear on . . . what is re-
ally meant by amateurism.’ ”  Id., at 1070–1071. 

Nor did the district court find much evidence to support
the  NCAA’s  contention  that  its  compensation  restrictions
play a role in consumer demand.  As the court put it, the
evidence failed “to establish that the challenged compensa-
tion rules, in and of themselves, have any direct connection
to consumer demand.”  Id., at 1070.  The court observed, for 
example, that the NCAA’s “only economics expert on the is-
sue  of  consumer  demand”  did  not  “study  any  standard 
measures of consumer demand” but instead simply “inter-
viewed  people  connected  with  the  NCAA  and  its  schools, 
who were chosen for him by defense counsel.”  Id., at 1075. 
Meanwhile,  the  student-athletes  presented  expert  testi-
mony and other evidence showing that consumer demand 
has increased markedly despite the new types of compensa-
tion the NCAA has allowed in recent decades.  Id., at 1074, 
1076.  The plaintiffs presented economic and other evidence
suggesting as well that further increases in student-athlete 
compensation  would  “not  negatively  affect  consumer  de-
mand.”  Id., at 1076.  At the same time, however, the district 
court did find that one particular aspect of the NCAA’s com-
pensation limits “may have some effect in preserving con-
sumer demand.”  Id., at 1082.  Specifically, the court found 
that  rules  aimed  at  ensuring  “student-athletes  do  not  re-
ceive  unlimited  payments  unrelated  to  education”  could 
play some role in product differentiation with professional 
sports and thus help sustain consumer demand for college 
athletics.  Id., at 1083. 

The court next required the student-athletes to show that
“substantially  less  restrictive  alternative  rules”  existed 
that “would achieve the same procompetitive effect as the