It’s the ultimate day of March and insanity continues — not in Indiana or Texas, however in Washington, D.C. Today, the Supreme Court heard an argument on faculty athlete compensation and… it didn’t appear to go all that effectively for the NCAA.
If you missed it, you possibly can test it out on C-SPAN. The debate is an hour-and-a-half audiostream and, I do know that appears like a riveting option to devour content material, however in case you’re quick on time, we’ve obtained you lined right here.
The subject on the desk was NCAA v. Alston, the place SCOTUS heard arguments over NCAA athlete fee and advantages. Seth Waxman, legal professional for the NCAA, was up first. And all the perfect spotlight reel-stuff occurred in his time.
As you’re about to see, most the justices, even those you may not like, smelled some Grade A B.S. coming from the 501c3.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who virtually by no means asks questions in hearings, probed Waxman concerning the subject of coaches salaries.
And… it’s odd. In truth, in most states, the best paid state worker is a university soccer coach. If you end up agreeing with Thomas, effectively, you’re not alone.
Then, we had Waxman make a remark you’d anticipate somebody who represents the NCAA to make however you’re nonetheless disillusioned when the phrases truly come out of their mouth:
Since when does the NCAA care about lecturers? The groups in each Final Fours have been away from their respective campuses for practically a month now. I’m certain plenty of studying is going on in the Bubble and on sport days throughout these very “normal” weeks!
Justice Alito later requested about coaches and faculties with “powerhouse football.”
Narrator voice: It can’t be defended.
Kavanaugh was up later. He informed Waxman, “schools are conspiring with competitors — agreeing with competitors… to pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing. And that just seems entirely circular and even somewhat disturbing.”
… And it’s.
It doesn’t appear to bode effectively for the NCAA that among the most conservative members of the 6-3 court docket are this skeptical. And if any Justice dissents in this case it could possibly be Breyer, who sounded sympathetic to the attract of “amateurism.”
Who is aware of what the end result can be. But questions from SCOTUS justices typically belie the place they really feel weaknesses are in arguments. We’ll have to attend for a choice in the months to come back, however, at a minimal, the NCAA had some holes uncovered in their logic as we speak.