3214
Comments (493)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
15
JimmyJam 15 points ago +15 / -0

This is not what the court ruled - they ruled the NCAA is in violation not because they don't compensate athletes but because they restrict compensation of athletes by schools and third parties. This does not force compensation, it lifts the restriction on compensation.

7
bidensmissingbrain 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sad I had to scroll this far down to find someone who actually knows what the ruling means.

This is basically the court ruling that the NCAA can't tell college sport players that they can't make any money off of anything related to the sport they have a scholarship for. The most extreme example would be college football players can now play for an NFL team while also playing for a college team. A more realistic example would be *insert popular college athlete here* can now be sponsored by XYZ company.

Colleges are still under the same "no paying players" rules as they were before.

1
GibsonDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

cciv's post below says that schools CAN pay their players under this ruling.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
cciv 3 points ago +3 / -0

The NCAA isn't going to pay anyone, but they now can't stop a wealthy school from hiring top athletes for millions and winning NCAA championships.