The Alston ruling itself won’t translate to cash payments. But it indirectly affects something that will: athletes profiting from their name, image, and likeness.
A cadre of college sports reformers have been fighting the NCAA in court and working on alternative models for years, if not decades. They provided a seasoned perspective to FOS.
When the Supreme Court ruling on NCAA v. Alston came out, headlines proclaimed it the end of the amateurism. But that’s not true.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of college athletes on Monday in the case NCAA v. Alston, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the main opinion.
In a unanimous and historic decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of college athletes in the case NCAA v. Alston on Monday.
During Senate NIL hearings, witnesses agreed that athletes should get NIL rights, and almost all expressed support for a federal law. But two points of contention emerged.
For professional athletes and social media influencers, there’s still a significant gender pay gap. If those numbers are any indication, they don’t paint a very rosy picture of what awaits college sports when NIL rules pass.
Until July, it’ll be unclear whether a gender pay gap will appear in college sports like it has in the pros. But if it does manifest, experts have a few ideas about how to mitigate it.
Valuations from multiple companies suggest that women’s sports athletes will cash in when NIL rules take effect. But the question remains: Will brands pay them what they’re actually worth?
The NAIA has proven that unrestrictive NIL rules can work if done correctly. What else can the NCAA learn from this?
