Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 42

2 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. v. ALSTON 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

strict student athletes from receiving compensation or ben-
efits from their colleges for playing sports.  And those rules 
have  also  historically  restricted  student  athletes  from  re-
ceiving money from endorsement deals and the like.

I  add  this  concurring  opinion  to  underscore  that  the
NCAA’s  remaining  compensation  rules  also  raise  serious 
questions under the antitrust laws.  Three points warrant 
emphasis. 

First,  the  Court  does  not  address  the  legality  of  the
NCAA’s remaining compensation rules.  As the Court says,
“the  student-athletes  do  not  renew  their  across-the-board 
challenge  to  the  NCAA’s  compensation  restrictions.    Ac-
cordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place 
or  the  district  court’s  judgment  upholding  them.    Our  re-
view is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.”  Ante, 
at 14. 

Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ulti-
mate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules,
the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should
be  analyzed  going  forward.  After  today’s  decision,  the
NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordi-
nary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws.  The 
Court  makes  clear  that  the  decades-old  “stray  comments”
about college sports and amateurism made in National Col-
legiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 
468  U. S.  85  (1984),  were  dicta  and  have  no  bearing  on
whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are law-
ful.  Ante, at 21.  And the Court stresses that the NCAA is 
not otherwise entitled to an exemption from the antitrust
laws.  Ante, at 23–24; see also Radovich v. National Foot-
ball League, 352 U. S. 445, 449–452 (1957).  As a result, ab-
sent  legislation  or  a  negotiated  agreement  between  the 
NCAA  and  the  student  athletes,  the  NCAA’s  remaining 
compensation  rules  should  be  subject  to  ordinary  rule  of
reason scrutiny.  See ante, at 18–19. 

Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s