Amicus Brief: NCAA v Alston
In NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA tried to explain that restraining student-athletes’ compensation was necessary to maintain their system of amateurism; however, they were unable to do so on two occasions. After conducting rule of reason analysis, the district court ruled that the NCAA did not prove that their rules increased competition. The NCAA appealed the district court’s decision, and the circuit court found that the lower court properly applied rule of reason analysis. The NCAA then argued that they should receive “abbreviated deferential review,” rather than full rule of reason scrutiny. COSAL members put together this brief because allowing the NCAA to avoid rule of reason analysis goes against precedent and harms competition. Most of the NCAA’s arguments depended on their self-characterization as a joint venture; however, both courts did not characterize the NCAA as such. Moreover, even if the NCAA were a joint venture, rule of reason is still appropriate. COSAL stated that the NCAA did not dispute facts. Instead, they disregarded rule of reason precedent and sought an abbreviated analysis in hopes of receiving immunity for their anticompetitive compensation rules. Written by Robert Kitchenoff and Joseph Goldberg.
