US Supreme Court backs payments for student athletes

Yahoo – AFP, Paul HANDLEY, June 21, 2021 

US Universities sports governed by the NCAA ,including football, are ahugely lucrative
business but athletes themselves don't reap the financial benefits, the Supreme Court said. 

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that America's top university athletics body cannot block student-athletes from getting extra benefits, eroding its power over the multi-billion-dollar college sports industry. 

The high court sided unanimously with student-athletes in a narrow case focused on whether they can receive limited cash or non-cash benefits from their schools related to their education, which the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) currently forbids. 

While it did not weigh in on whether student-athletes should be able to cash in completely on their performances, the Supreme Court made it clear it did not accept the NCAA's claim that its strict ban on their earning any money, to retain "amateur" status, was important to the business. 

The court called the NCAA an effective monopoly in its control over the lucrative industry of college sports. 

"Put simply, this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the opinion. 

"No one disputes that the NCAA's restrictions in fact decrease the compensation that student-athletes receive compared to what a competitive market would yield." 

The long-brewing case, NCAA v. Alston et al, did not address the hottest topic of college sports: whether athletes, like universities and the NCAA, should benefit from endorsements or monetization of their personal images, such as sales of shirts bearing their names. 

But the court said the NCAA could not prove that athletes keeping their amateur status was important to what Gorsuch called its "massive business." 

"Those who run this enterprise profit in a different way than the student-athletes whose activities they oversee," he said. 

"The president of the NCAA earns nearly $4 million per year. Commissioners of the top conferences take home between $2 to $5 million... And annual salaries for top Division I college football coaches approach $11 million." 

'Price-fixing labor' 

The ruling appeared to open the gate for a broader challenge to the NCAA's control on how student-athletes can earn money, or share in the profits the NCAA and universities rake in. 

"Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion. 

"The NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America," he said. 

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks' wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks." 

The White House applauded the ruling, while the NCAA said the court had reaffirmed its authority to adopt "reasonable rules" and that it remained free to judge what constitutes "truly educational benefits." 

Individual states will implement new laws on July 1 that give student-athletes the right to profit from endorsements, so-called "name, image and likeness" (NIL) benefits. 

Currently the NCAA bans them from profiting from social media, sales of shirts bearing their names, video games using their likenesses and apparel deals arranged by their schools. 

But the much smaller National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, authorized NIL benefits last year. 

The NCAA has stalled on the issue, leading to Congress now debating legislation. 

The council for NCAA's powerful Division I, representing the largest and richest schools, will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday and could discuss the issue. 

"The NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement. 

"Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling."

UK govt slams students for ditching 'colonial' queen portrait

 Yahoo – AFP, June 9, 2021

The queen has become the latest victim of what the Daily Telegraph
called 'cancel culture'

The UK government has criticised graduate students at the University of Oxford who removed a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, claiming it represented a colonial past that many found offensive. 

The move comes as students across the country have played a leading role in protests against historical figures with links to the British empire or slavery. 

The queen "has become the latest victim of cancel culture", or ostracism of those whose opinions are deemed unacceptable, the right-leaning Daily Telegraph wrote on Wednesday. 

Graduate students at Magdalen College took down the colourised print of the queen from their recreation room after a majority vote, because "for some students, depictions of the monarch and the British monarchy represent recent colonial history", The Times reported. 

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson reacted angrily Tuesday night, calling the move "simply absurd".

"She is the head of state and a symbol of what is best about the UK," he tweeted. 

Hanging portraits of the queen is not customary in state educational institutions, but some colleges at Cambridge and Oxford universities have portraits on display. 

"It was decided that the room should be a welcoming, neutral place for all members, regardless of background, demographic, or views," said Matthew Katzman, head of the Middle Common Room committee at Magdalen. 

"Freedom of speech allows even intelligent people to be offensive and obnoxiously ignorant," Oxford University Chancellor Chris Patten was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying of the decision. 

The student protest comes as the queen is due to celebrate her 70th jubilee next year. 

BBC TV presenter Richard Madeley asked: "How can this make any sense when this queen has presided over the dismantling of what was left of empire?" 

Another Oxford college, Oriel, last month reversed its decision to remove a controversial statue of the 19th-century colonialist Cecil Rhodes -- a major donor. 

That U-turn sparked widespread anger. 

British sculptor Antony Gormley suggested to The Financial Times that the statue should instead be turned round to face the wall in shame.

Related Article:

'Must do more': British royals reveal staff diversity data