Statements (57)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:court_cases
|
| gptkbp:advertising |
Gained national attention
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed for implications on college athletics
May influence future NCAA regulations Relevant to ongoing debates about college sports Used in law schools for sports law education Examined balance between amateurism and athlete rights |
| gptkbp:case_number |
20-512
Extensive legal briefs submitted |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Unanimous decision
Allowed schools to provide certain benefits Mixed reactions from stakeholders NCAA's restrictions were overly broad Shift in college sports landscape The NCAA's rules violated antitrust laws Athletes can receive education-related benefits without restrictions |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Landmark ruling in sports law
Part of a larger trend towards athlete rights. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Significant impact on NCAA governance
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:None
|
| gptkbp:duration |
Several years of litigation
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 21, 2021
|
| gptkbp:future_prospects |
Potential for further legal challenges to NCAA rules
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
NCAA v. Alston
|
| gptkbp:impact_on_ncaa |
Changes in NCAA policies regarding athlete benefits
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:NCAA
gptkb:Shawne_Alston |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Judgment in favor of Alston
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Review of NCAA's amateurism model
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Antitrust law
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Involves antitrust and labor law principles
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
NCAA's rules on education-related benefits
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
NCAA's rules deemed anti-competitive
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Alston was represented by a group of former athletes
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) laws
|
| gptkbp:material |
Brought by former college athletes
|
| gptkbp:ncaa's_defense |
Maintained that rules protect amateurism
|
| gptkbp:ncaa's_future |
Potential changes to athlete compensation policies
|
| gptkbp:ncaa's_legal_strategy |
Challenged by multiple lawsuits
|
| gptkbp:ncaa's_position |
Defended its rules as necessary for amateurism
|
| gptkbp:ncaaresponse |
Reevaluation of compensation policies
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Increased scrutiny on NCAA practices
NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits were struck down |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Affirmation of athletes' rights to receive education-related benefits
Future athlete compensation cases |
| gptkbp:public_interest |
High profile case in sports law
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Neil_Gorsuch
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Support for athlete rights
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma
gptkb:O'_Bannon_v._NCAA |
| gptkbp:significance |
Impact on college athlete compensation
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Sonia_Sotomayor
gptkb:Elena_Kagan |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|