National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston | 594 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 210 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2021) The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an organization that governs college level athletics programs. The association has monopsony control over college athletics and is very profitable, generating over one billion dollars in revenue each year. However, it limits the type and amount of compensation given to student athletes. In National Collegiate Athletic Association versus Alston, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the association’s compensation restrictions violated antitrust law. In twenty fourteen, a group of student athletes, including Shawne Alston, filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The athletes alleged that the association’s rules limiting student athlete compensation violated Section One of the Sherman Act. The association defended its rules, arguing that the compensation limits promoted amateurism and distinguished college athletics from professional athletics. At trial, the district court conducted a full rule of reason analysis. The court found that due to the association’s monopsony power in the relevant market, its compensation limits had significant anticompetitive effects. Although the court recognized that compensation limits unrelated to education served the procompetitive benefit of maintaining amateurism, it concluded that the association’s limits on education related compensation violated Section One by unreasonably restraining competition among schools for college athletes. The district court enjoined the association from limiting education related compensation. The association appealed the injunction, arguing that the district court erred by conducting a rule of reason analysis instead of a quick look analysis. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nationa... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/nationa... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries