A Supreme Court ruling Monday could have long-term implications on the debate over how and when athletes at UNLV and other universities can make money.
The court ruled 9-0 in NCAA v. Alston that restrictions on education incentives for student athletes, like laptops and internships, were impermissible.
What that ruling means specifically for UNLV, however, isn’t yet known. Though student athletes cannot to draw a salary for their play, schools will now be able to offer incentives like postgraduate scholarships or class equipment.
“It’s a new ruling so we’ll have to see what this opens up,” said Nancy Lough, a UN LV education professor who coordinates the school’s College Sport Leadership certificate program.
In a statement, UNLV said it is “continuously looking for ways to enhance our student-athletes’ educational experience.”
The Nevada Legislature went a step further during its recent session with Assembly Bill 254, which bars universities from preventing student athletes from profiting off their name, image or likeness. The bill, which takes effect next year, does not allow universities to compensate student athletes directly.
The bill was introduced by Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, D-Las Vegas, who played running back at UNR in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Frierson argued in introducing the bill that the NCAA and colleges earn billions of dollars from student athletes.
“I jokingly note that I can still run if a dog is chasing me, but that is as far as it is goes,” Frierson said at a hearing on the bill. “These student athletes sacrifice their bodies. They do it at the detriment of themselves but at the significant benefit of institutions.”
Lough said students in other areas are allowed to earn money without risking scholarships.
“If I’m a theater major and someone wants to pay me to perform in a play, I can take that pay and it’s not going to impact my scholarship in any way,” Lough said. “The same has not been true for student athletes.”
Lurking at the margins of the discussion is the idea that athletes could one day collect a salary for playing.
While college athletes cannot receive direct compensation for their play, Monday’s court ruling could have teed that issue up for a future legal fight.
The NCAA has argued that its status as an amateur organization precludes it from paying salaries or incentives like a professional league.
It’s an argument the Supreme Court rejected, at least in part.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the “NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws.”
“The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels,” Kavanaugh said. “But the labels cannot disguise the reality: the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”