KEY FACTS
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that would allow student-athletes to get some additional education-related benefits like reimbursements for academic expenses and internships, though that ruling still kept in place other limits like being directly compensated for playing on sports teams.
Student-athletes had sued the NCAA alleging it was violating federal antitrust laws with its rules that limit student compensation.
The NCAA had asked the court to strike down the court’s ruling and let them keep all the restraints on athletes’ benefits in place, claiming the court should apply an “extremely deferential standard” to the organization since it’s an “a joint venture among members who must collaborate” on athlete compensation instead of a monopoly subject to antitrust rules.
If the schools weren’t making money off attendance, the TV contract and merchandise....I wouldn’t say much of anything. Univ of Alabama makes around $33-million a year for example.
The real issue...how you’d divide up the loot, and admit that only thirty-odd schools in America make real money. The rest, if you figured the travel required, the uniforms, and such...basically break even.
I also remembered reading that UGA actually had a higher graduation rate for student athletes than Tech. I don't know if it was because the courses were easier or the athletes were smarter.
Bottom line was that it really did look like the student athletes were only there to beef up the programs and if they didn't make it to the pros the Varsity was a short walk away.
During my time at OU in the 1970's the star football players had shiny new Corvettes and Camaros.
Just loaners for the season I'm sure, as long as it was a winning season and they beat Texas..Oklahoma fans are kinda fickle about that.
meanwhile, if you are going to school on a math or science scholarship, there are no restrictions on the amount of $$ you can make on a side job or intern doing math or science.