Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION v. 
ALSTON ET AL.  

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–512.  Argued March 31, 2021—Decided June 21, 2021* 

Colleges  and  universities  across  the  country  have  leveraged  sports  to 
bring in revenue, attract attention, boost enrollment, and raise money 
from alumni.  That profitable enterprise relies on “amateur” student-
athletes who compete under horizontal restraints that restrict how the 
schools may compensate them for their play.  The National Collegiate 
Athletic Association (NCAA) issues and enforces these rules, which re-
strict compensation for student-athletes in various ways.  These rules 
depress compensation for at least some student-athletes below what a 
competitive market would yield.   
   Against this backdrop, current and former student-athletes brought 
this antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on compen-
sation.  Specifically, they alleged that the NCAA’s rules violate §1 of 
the Sherman Act, which prohibits “contract[s], combination[s], or con-
spirac[ies] in restraint of trade or commerce.”  15 U. S. C. §1.  Key facts 
were undisputed: The NCAA and its members have agreed to compen-
sation limits for student-athletes; the NCAA enforces these limits on 
its  member-schools;  and  these  compensation  limits  affect  interstate 
commerce.  Following a bench trial, the district court issued a 50-page 
opinion that refused to disturb the NCAA’s rules limiting undergrad-
uate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic 
performance.    At  the  same  time,  the  court  found  unlawful  and  thus 
enjoined  certain  NCAA  rules  limiting  the  education-related  benefits 
schools may make available to student-athletes.  Both sides appealed.  
The  Ninth  Circuit  affirmed  in  full,  holding  that  the  district  court 

—————— 

* Together with No. 20–520, American Athletic Conference et al. v. Al-

ston et al., also on certiorari to the same court.