Historic ruling against the National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment: What the decision entails

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the association cannot prevent student-athletes from receiving economic benefits related to studying in amateur defense.

in a historic failure, The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NCAA Can’t be banned in the name of a hobby That student-athletes receive financial benefits related to the study.

What does the Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA mean?

The Supreme Court ruled that the limits the NCAA was trying to set around education-related benefits could not be met. Colleges can offer Division I athletes. However , This does not mean that these young people start receiving salaries.

The court ruling indicates that schools will be able to compensate athletes not only with scholarships to pay for attendance – which is already valid – but They can also pay for necessary items such as computers, musical instruments, graduate programs, and other costs related to education. In return, they will also be able to pay for study abroad programs, offer other scholarships and fund training after they finish playing in school.

What are the powers of the National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation after the ruling?

In any case, The NCAA can still place limits on cash awards for academic achievement or graduation. But the organization wanted to increase the restrictions even more, arguing that it was necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.

But the former athletes who brought the case, including former West Virginia soccer player Shaun Alston, He argued that the NCAA’s education-related compensation rules were unfair and in violation of federal antitrust law قانون Designed to boost competition.

“Eliminating some benefits related to education would maintain consumer demand for college sports as well as contested rules. These benefits are easily distinguishable from professional salaries.”Judge Sydney R. Thomas, one of the three members who made the decision, in his intervention.

Suspension