New York Times

Supreme Court Declines to Consider N.C.A.A. Rules on Paying Athletes

October 4, 2016

by Adam Liptak

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case about whether the N.C.A.A. is violating federal antitrust laws by restricting what college athletes can earn.

Last year, the federal appeals court in California issued a decision that managed to make both sides unhappy. The court ruled against the association, saying its amateurism rule violated the antitrust laws.

But the court went on to say that the association may restrict colleges from compensating athletes beyond offering scholarships and a few thousand dollars for “the cost of attendance.” The appeals court rejected a trial judge’s proposed alternative that colleges be allowed to pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation.

Both sides sought Supreme Court review. As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for turning down the case.

The case was brought by Ed O’Bannon, a former U.C.L.A. basketball star, and other current and former college football and basketball players. They sought compensation for the commercial use of their names and images in video games, archival recordings and the like.

The N.C.A.A. responded that college athletes were amateurs and that the distinctive nature of college sports would be destroyed by turning a scholastic model into a professional one.

In addition to asking the justices to weigh in on the antitrust question, the association also sought review of a related appeals court ruling. The association said the First Amendment allowed use of the athletes’ names and likenesses without compensation. The lower courts are divided on the legal standards for when commercial uses of celebrities’ images require payments to them.

The case, N.C.A.A v. O’Bannon, No. 15-1388, along with O’Bannon v. N.C.A.A., No. 15-1167, is part of a larger debate over the treatment of athletes who participate in sports that are immensely lucrative for their colleges and universities.