MSN - AP World http://syn2.thecanadianpress.com:8080/mrss/feed/fcf7391a2f354311807f0501c16bde6a MSN - AP World Copyright © 2010-2018 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:08:58 +0000 High court sides with ex-athletes in NCAA dispute http://syn2.thecanadianpress.com:8080/mrss/feed/fcf7391a2f354311807f0501c16bde6a/7e362cdbee324119836dd73d13f30669 The Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can not enforce rules limiting education-related benefits, like computers and paid internships, that colleges offer to student athletes. (June 21) 7e362cdbee324119836dd73d13f30669 Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:32:31 +0000 SHOTLIST:RESTRICTION SUMMARY:ASSOCIATED PRESSARCHIVE: Washington DC - 12 May 20201. Wide of United States Supreme Court building2. Close up of American Flag outside courtASSOCIATED PRESSWashington DC - 21 June 2021++SOUNDBITE PARTIALLY COVERED++3. SOUNDBITE (English) Mark Sherman, Associated Press, Supreme Court Reporter:"The court ruled unanimously today that the NCAA can't enforce its rules that limit education-related benefits - computers, paid internships, travel, things of that sort that colleges offer to student-athletes. And primarily we're talking about Division one college basketball and football players, the big revenue-generating sports."ASSOCIATED PRESSARCHIVE: Arlington, Texas - 1 January 20214. STILL the large video board at AT&T Stadium shows the Notre Dame and Alabama logos before the Rose Bowl NCAA college football gamePOOLARCHIVE: Washington, DC - 23 April 20215. Various of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh, other justices posing for a group photoASSOCIATED PRESSWashington DC - 21 June 2021++SOUNDBITE PARTIALLY COVERED++6. SOUNDBITE (English) Mark Sherman, Associated Press, Supreme Court Reporter:"This, this is not a case that deals with whether student-athletes can be paid, although there was one justice on the court, Brett Kavanaugh, who made a pretty strong argument about... how under the laws of antitrust that a case about actually paying student-athletes maybe would come out the same way, at least in his view. He said that the bottom line is that the NCAA and the colleges that are part of the NCAA suppress pay for student-athletes who are responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenues for those colleges every year. And in Kavanagh's view, those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes."ASSOCIATED PRESSARCHIVE: Pittsburgh - 18 March 20157. STILL an athlete shoots a jump shot on the NCAA floor logo during practice for a college basketball gameASSOCIATED PRESSARCHIVE: Beaumont, Texas - 19 April 20198. STILL an athlete stands near a NCAA logo during a softball gameASSOCIATED PRESSWashington DC - 21 June 2021++SOUNDBITE PARTIALLY COVERED++9. SOUNDBITE (English) Mark Sherman, Associated Press, Supreme Court Reporter:"The NCAA had said that it feared that a decision against it would really blur the line between professional and amateur athletes, because colleges would then have to try to lure the most talented athletes coming out of high school by offering thousands of dollars worth of these perks... The NCAA also, I think, is looking here at a kind of a slippery slope argument, which is that if it can't enforce its rules against these side benefits, these additional benefits, these sweeteners, as we've been saying, then it might be harder down the line to defend its rules against actually paying student-athletes. Now, again, that's not that's not an issue the Supreme Court decided today. And it remains to be seen how that case would come out if it ever gets to the Supreme Court."ASSOCIATED PRESSARCHIVE: Washington DC - 12 May 202010. Medium of main entrance to Supreme Court11. Close-up engraving reads "Equal Justice Under Law"STORYLINE:The Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can not enforce rules limiting education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships — that colleges offer to student athletes.The case doesn't decide whether students can be paid salaries. Instead, the ruling will help determine whether schools decide to offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in those benefits for things including tutoring, study abroad programs and graduate scholarships.The high court agreed with a group of former college athletes that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football are unenforceable.Mark Sherman, a U.S. Supreme Court reporter for the Associated Press, said Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued the issue of compensating athletes could fall under anti-trust laws which generally assert that competition should be common place in certain industries."He said that the bottom line is that the NCAA and the colleges that are part of the NCAA suppress pay for student-athletes who are responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenues for those colleges every year. And in Kavanagh's view, those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes," Sherman said.Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA had defended its rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.The NCAA had argued that a ruling for the athletes could lead to a blurring of the line between college and professional sports, with colleges trying to lure talented athletes by offering over-the-top education benefits worth thousands of dollars."The NCAA also, I think, is looking here at a kind of a slippery slope argument, which is that if it can't enforce its rules against... these additional benefits, these sweeteners, as we've been saying, then it might be harder down the line to defend its rules against actually paying student-athletes," Sherman said. "Now, again, that's not that's not an issue the Supreme Court decided today. And it remains to be seen how that case would come out if it ever gets to the Supreme Court."As a result of the ruling, the NCAA itself can't bar schools from sweetening their offers to Division I basketball and football players with additional education-related benefits. But individual athletic conferences can still set limits if they choose.Even without the court's ruling, however, changes seem on the way for how college athletes are compensated. The NCAA has been working to amend its rules to allow athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses, frequently abbreviated NIL. That would allow athletes to earn money for things like sponsorship deals, online endorsement and personal appearances.===========================================================Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. The Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can not enforce rules limiting education-related benefits, like computers and paid internships, that colleges offer to student athletes. (June 21) High court sides with ex-athletes in NCAA dispute