Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

5 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

compensation?  How would any compensation regime com-
ply with Title IX?  If paying student athletes requires some-
thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve
competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? 
And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I stu-
dent athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly 
compensating some or all of those student athletes? 

Of  course,  those  difficult  questions  could  be  resolved  in
ways other than litigation.  Legislation would be one option.
Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in
collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agree-
ment) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the rev-
enues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how pro-
fessional  football  and  basketball  players  have  negotiated 
for a share of league revenues.  Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, 
Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Bas-
ketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Win-
ter, J.).  Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be
resolved,  however,  the  NCAA’s  current  compensation  re-
gime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. 

To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain 
important traditions that have become part of the fabric of 
America—game  days  in  Tuscaloosa  and  South  Bend;  the 
packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s 
lacrosse  championships  on  Memorial  Day  weekend;  track 
and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball
World  Series  in  Oklahoma  City  and  Omaha;  the  list  goes 
on.  But  those  traditions  alone  cannot  justify  the  NCAA’s
decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the
backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. 
Nowhere  else  in  America  can  businesses  get  away  with
agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the 
theory  that  their  product  is  defined  by  not  paying  their 
workers a fair market rate.  And under ordinary principles
of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should
be any different.  The NCAA is not above the law.