Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

temptation to require that enterprises employ the least re-
strictive means of achieving their legitimate business objec-
tives.  Judges must be mindful, too, of their limitations—as 
generalists,  as  lawyers,  and  as  outsiders  trying  to  under-
stand  intricate  business  relationships.    Judges  must  re-
main aware that markets are often more effective than the 
heavy hand of judicial power when it comes to enhancing
consumer welfare.  And judges must be open to clarifying 
and reconsidering their decrees in light of changing market
realities.  Courts  reviewing  complex  business  arrange-
ments should, in other words, be wary about invitations to
“set sail on a sea of doubt.”  United States v. Addyston Pipe 
& Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 284 (CA6 1898) (Taft, J.).  But we do 
not  believe  the  district  court  fell  prey  to  that  temptation.
Its judgment does not float on a sea of doubt but stands on
firm ground—an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful le-
gal  analysis  consistent  with  established  antitrust  princi-
ples, and a healthy dose of judicial humility. 

* 

Some will think the district court did not go far enough. 
By  permitting  colleges  and  universities  to  offer  enhanced 
education-related  benefits,  its  decision  may  encourage 
scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a meas-
ure  of  compensation  more  consistent  with  the  value  they 
bring  to  their  schools.    Still,  some  will  see  this  as  a  poor 
substitute  for  fuller  relief.  At  the  same  time,  others  will 
think  the  district  court  went  too  far  by  undervaluing  the 
social benefits associated with amateur athletics.  For our 
part,  though,  we  can  only  agree  with  the  Ninth  Circuit:
“ ‘The national debate about amateurism in college sports is 
important.  But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve 
it.  Nor could we.  Our task is simply to review the district
court  judgment  through  the  appropriate  lens  of  antitrust 
law.’ ”    958  F. 3d,  at  1265.    That  review  persuades  us  the 
district court acted within the law’s bounds.