Supreme Court rules against NCAA in landmark antitrust case

The blockbuster ruling could change the face of college sports forever.
8:25 | 06/21/21

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:



Skip to this video now

Now Playing:


Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Supreme Court rules against NCAA in landmark antitrust case
Let's start with the supreme court's unanimous ruling siding with former college athletes are against the NCAA when it comes to player compensation. This ruling will allow for some educated related payments with do things like computer boom laptops and things like that does not yet. Allow salaries for players. But couldn't this ruling allowing for enhanced education benefits that could be paid to college athletes open the door to that NCAA president mark -- responded to the ruling saying. Quote while today's decision preserves the lower court ruling it also reaffirms the NC double a.'s authority to adopt a reasonable rules and repeatedly notes. That the NCAA remains free to articulate. What they are what are and are not truly educational benefits so. We're to break this down and joining me to help but didn't help us is a senior Washington reported Devin Dwyer and ESPN analyst and former NBA player Jay Williams so Jake. I'd like to start would you. Have you heard anything from players or school officials about this decision how big is this for the players themselves do you think. We absolve about this part of the past twenty years and to meet. This is opening punch of the final combination. Using a boxing analogy correct Gregg in the NCAA is not above the law. And does a UV arsenal quick context here Gil when I was coming into school if you start to recognize the amount of abuse that was being generated. All my New Jersey alone you saw. Aspects of shoe deals you know this. What TV network deals or even rising too extreme and so. We are always aware of it I think now even here judge just I don't know about this recognizing that this is the beginning of the process a really opening pandora's box all our decisions in general. It certainly is now in and a unanimous Supreme Court DeVon that court is saying the NCAA can no longer bar schools from providing student athletes with those. Education related benefits like free lap tops paid internships. But the statement released by the NCAA president there. We just heard he's showing the NCAA still has it sort of determine what an educational benefit actually did so what's the conflict here what you're trying to say. Will be NCAA Terry has argued for a long time. That the caps. On some of these benefits the limits on compensation for athletes are essential to preserving amateurism. In the sport in under federal antitrust law they argued that basically. This is a product what they are putting out and. The fact that these athletes are not paid wages are what are limited in the terms of their competition that's part of the deal. That's part of this package and so in response to today's decision the NCAA is basically making clear that they while they'll but you know bide by. The supreme court's decision they still get to decide what. Our. Education related benefits you mentioned some of them paid internships computers musical instruments touring expenses study abroad programs. Those are what have fallen under the definition. Of education related benefits no limits on those any longer after today's decision but the NCAA making clear. They'll continue to hold that line. And Jay you mentioned that maybe the opening. Shot now in the opening podtech and the combination could bring down the whole structure of NCAA limiting. What student athletes can can earn and in a concurring opinion. The Supreme Court justice spread capped almost seem to invite a case to get to that point he said the bottom line here is that the NCAA and its members are suppressing the pay a student athletes. Who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year that was. Justice Kavanagh. So surge you've heard this before. Yeah some people say oh well this would ruin that be the spirit to eat thoughts of college athletics as a great college and pro athlete. Did you feel then did it was a different experience for you because you weren't being paid in terms of the spirit of the thing. And and how do you think this could pave the way down the road for a team to change all that. Well every business model needs to fall but I like the fact that we should refer to it as a business model but the main participants. If the players are about the bridge is being in the business model. So look at it this whole thing to meet this argument has been our. It's been something that people automatically go back to say it's going to ruin the Eagles and overall feeling of amateurism but it's never been at amateurism. And this has been free labor to a degree credit getting mostly amongst all people of color who were in desperation to a degree and recognize that. But my father worked at American Express my mother received dual master degrees critical principle. What I was at. Aren't the majority of a lot of other I knew where it was either. We bring you are as big he says he'll kick rocks or play sports right I don't know how did you get to the next level so. It also allows us to address issues that we change their curriculum. Teaching tomorrow. Financial literacy and things like course to help our young student athletes be more prepared as they inserted free market. And that's what it's rescission easily see. If you're allowed to capitalize York in the industry should be able to watch on what they're free market dictates and I think now we're aren't easy conversation. Ended in that direction. Whom and that whole amateur ethos. Really an import and invented tradition imported from Britain where they they thought that gentlemen amateurs said gentlemen manager shouldn't soil there. They're games by playing against dirty professionals it was it was something brought into the United States or DeVon what does it say. That this court was able to make a unanimous. Decision here's a term amateurism essential to college athletic so why it was so important. To this case is well below what was it say about the court in this area. Vice a couple of things Terry first it's as of the. NCAA is argument has completely crumbled as Jay mentioned there and it didn't wasn't particularly persuasive I was there. Listening to the oral argument the justices on the left and the right showed a heck of a lot of empathy in this case for the athletes. And to g.'s point they pointed out they said walk many of them. It you know it you. You talk about amateurism but why is this a multi billion dollar business with the culture is reaping multi million dollar salaries the commissioners. Earning multimillion dollar salaries the school's raking it in a niche here you have the players. On the sidelines something just doesn't add up and said this decision is the court really blowing the whistle on that model. Even if they did stop a little bit short and I think that's the other reason why. It was unanimous here is now and it was so narrow this just applies to those education related benefits but as you've been saying it might open the door to more Fred. And and the reason it was limited is because that was the case that came before the court it was a lower court ruling that the court. Upheld here they'll only was asked the court was only asked to deal with these education benefits OJ. Now that were in this world. We're schools will be able to compete offering. The kinds of things it DeVon has mentioned educational are related benefits and compensation essentially for their their labor as athletes. How will it affect college sports and crew recruiting and and the nature of the winners getting you know better I guess or. How do you read what this will do to college sports. Well I love this question because it's a natural question to ask but I wouldn't we come back to you another question. How does change count sports at all if it it doesn't. This is it could look how sports is always bring it needs to be very frank we do it's been an open market. There been a lot of these issues that instantly has arisen about as a really suit the compensation but he's admitting being paid his beginning and I'm to a ten different colleges. That's a reality in the matter whether people like to admit it or not because I know we live in holistic world where is about amateurism but it hasn't amateurs from beginning so now what we're doing is just legalizing. What's already been at current in the underbelly of sports it's been how. Happening which agencies. Agents financial advisors accountants. Everybody's been able to participate in that business of the sport but yet. It is the one that gets criticized her scrutinized when he receives compensation or not what we're saying is. Hey let's legalize it let's make it okay and then you could still take a squeal like what's. And as a great analysis.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"duration":"8:25","description":"The blockbuster ruling could change the face of college sports forever. ","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/US","id":"78408733","title":"Supreme Court rules against NCAA in landmark antitrust case","url":"/US/video/supreme-court-rules-ncaa-landmark-antitrust-case-78408733"}