Trump Commission Expected to Back NCAA Antitrust Exemption in College Sports Reform

The NCAA has long advocated for such protection, particularly after a major legal setback in 2021. In the case of NCAA v. Alston, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9–0 against the association, determining that the NCAA’s rules related to education-related benefits for athletes violated antitrust law. According to Sportico, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion emphasized that NCAA regulations must be evaluated under ordinary antitrust scrutiny rather than receiving special treatment under the law.

That scrutiny requires courts to weigh the competitive and anti-competitive effects of restrictions imposed by organizations like the NCAA. Under this framework, policies that prevent athletes from receiving compensation or limit how schools compete for players can be examined for their impact on the economic marketplace. According to Sportico, the ruling reinforced that college sports are not exempt from the same antitrust principles that govern other industries.

One key issue involves the NCAA’s influence in the marketplace for college athlete services. Economists often describe the organization’s role as a monopsony, meaning it acts as a dominant buyer of labor rather than a dominant seller of goods. While other governing bodies such as the NAIA and NJCAA exist, the NCAA’s structure and the prominence of its member schools allow it to exert considerable control over where athletes can sell their athletic labor and publicity rights. According to Sportico, antitrust law typically treats monopsonies with caution because they can suppress wages, limit competition and reduce innovation.

Read more: NCAA Moves to Settle Antitrust Suit Over Tennis Prize Money Restrictions

Another factor is the collaborative nature of NCAA member institutions. Universities and conferences compete in numerous areas, including recruiting students, securing funding, attracting faculty and generating media attention. When those institutions coordinate rules that restrict how they compete—such as agreements limiting compensation for top athletes—legal challenges can arise. According to Sportico, antitrust law requires that businesses competing in the same marketplace avoid agreements that restrain competition.

Over the past decade, numerous lawsuits brought by athletes have tested the legality of NCAA policies governing compensation and eligibility. Legal challenges have been initiated by figures including Ed O’Bannon, Shawne Alston, Grant House, Sedona Prince, RaeQuan Battle, Diego Pavia and Charles Bediako. Their cases have repeatedly placed the NCAA’s restrictions under judicial review.

The NCAA has argued that its rules are necessary to preserve competitive balance, maintain academic priorities, protect gender equity and prevent college athletics from becoming a feeder system for professional leagues. However, courts have frequently been skeptical of those defenses. According to Sportico, many judges increasingly view top-tier college athletics—particularly football programs in major conferences—as operating in a system that closely resembles a professional labor market.

If the commission ultimately recommends an antitrust exemption, it would likely require action from Congress. Such legislation could give the NCAA broader authority to regulate athlete compensation and eligibility without facing the same level of legal scrutiny that currently applies under federal antitrust law.

Source: Sportico