National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston (20-512)

argument 20-512

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 33m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the historical basis of the NCAA’s amateurism rule?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty five twelve, National Collegiate Athletic Association versus Alston and the consolidated case. Mr. Waxman.

Michael D. Waxman 0:11

Good morning, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. For more than a hundred years the distinct character of college sports has been that it's played by students who are amateurs, which is to say that they are not paid for their play. Maintaining that distinct character is both pro competitive because it differentiates the N C double A's product from professional sports. and can be achieved only through agreement. The lower courts agreed that the N C double A's conception of amateurism is pro competitive. But in striking down several of the rules, they made two fundamental errors. First, they defined their own quote much narrower conception of amateurism to mean only that athletes not be paid unlimited amounts unrelated to education.

Michael D. Waxman 1:05

And they then imposed a regime that permits athletes to be paid thousands of dollars each year just for playing on a team and unlimited cash for quote post eligibility internships. That manifestly preserves neither the NCAA's demarcation between college and professional sports, nor even the lower courts, because whatever their labels, these new allowances are akin to professional salaries. Especially given the truly unique history here. A rule that is reasonably designed to preserve amateurism, as the NCAA has defined it, should be upheld. Rules rules that do not enforce the amateur status of athletes, by contrast, may be subject to detailed scrutiny. Decades of judicial experience show that that distinction is both sensible and administrable, and the alternative is perpetual litigation and judicial superintendence as the past twelve years in the Ninth Circuit so vividly illustrate and portend.

Michael D. Waxman 2:14

Thank you.

John G. Roberts 2:16

Uh Mr. Waxman, do you want us to apply the uh so called quick look approach uh in evaluating these restrictions, is that right?

Michael D. Waxman 2:27

Uh that's right in this sense. And let me just say, Mr. Chief Justice, first of all, look, we understand that there's been a trial here, and we are we are perfectly prepared to explain, as we've tried to in our briefs, why, notwithstanding the trial, reversal is required and the antitrust laws do not permit the court to impose the decree that it did. But we think that in order to avoid the situation that we currently have where we have endless line drawing and judicial supervision Poc uh um punctuated by requests for treble damages, it's important for the court to speak clearly here. And I will say that given that we have what the what the government acknowledges is a truly unique situation in which we have a product that is defined by the restraint on competition

Michael D. Waxman 3:22

It is perfectly appropriate and necessary for the court to examine in whatever detail is necessary whether the product that's produced really is pro competitive. Well, but your

John G. Roberts 3:34

your friend on the other side says we've never used the uh quick look doctrine to uphold uh restrictions only to strike them down.

Michael D. Waxman 3:45

Well, uh look, quick look is a particular phrase. We haven't used it, but this court has made clear that the rule of reason represents a continuum of scrutiny, as the court explained in Cal Dental. Uh the court needs to determine the inquiry meet for the circumstances. This court recognized the fact that in in America in section six of America. American needle that a form of quick look or abbreviated review may well be appropriate to uphold the very kind of rules that are at issue here. And more broadly, Mr. Chief Justice, in antitrust cases like Brooke Group and Trinco, the court has adopted clear standards that a plaintiff must meet in order to overcome dismissal. And the rationale for the approach that we advocate advocate is similar to what prompted the court in those other circumstances to impose such a deferential review.

Michael D. Waxman 4:47

And I will say that

John G. Roberts 4:48

I I I think maybe Mr. Waxman, the one limitation that is the most troublesome is um uh or or lack of limitation, I guess, that schools can pay up to uh fifty thousand dollars for a ten million dollar insurance policy to protect student athletes for uh future earnings.