the BigAmateurism monologues

A series of events over the last 18 months—some unforeseeable—have created a perfect storm that will change college sports forever. The NCAA's bait an…
Apr 3rd, 2021 | 57:57

Gavel to Gavel Analysis of Alston Supreme Court Argument

Important Heads-Up for this Episode: I have an extended intro for this episode that includes a series of audio clips from the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Alston on 3/31. The full intro is about four and a half minutes. These clips cover the range of central issues raised during the argument, literally gavel to gavel. The transcript of the argument (from the Supreme Court website) can be found here with page citations (“TR”) for each clip. The speakers you will hear (in the order presented in the clips) are as follows: (1) Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the case (TR, 4); (2) NCAA lead attorney Seth Waxman’s introductory argument (TR, 4-5); (3) athletes’ lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler’s introductory argument (TR, 42); (4) Justice Elena Kagan’s comments on amateurism-based compensation limits as amounting to price-fixing [during the NCAA’s argument] (TR, 24-25); (5) Justice Neil Gorsuch’s comments on NCAA monopoly/monopsony power combined with price-fixing to limit the labor market for revenue-producing athletes [during NCAA argument] (TR, 29); (6) Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s comments on “disturbing” NCAA justification for price-fixing [during NCAA argument] (TR, 33); (7) Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s questions on athletes’ waiver of claims for an open and free market for the value of athletes’ services [during athletes’ argument] (TR 52-53); (8) Justice Kagan’s question/comments on fear of “floodgate” of litigation if the Ninth Circuit opinion is upheld [during athletes’ argument] (TR, 56); (9) Justice Kavanaugh’s question/comments on “floodgate” of litigation concerns [during athletes’ argument] (TR, 60-61); (10) Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s (representing the United States) argument on relevance of NCAA’s conceptualization of amateurism as relevant only as procompetitive justification for compensation limits rather than its value as a free-standing normative principle (TR, 69-70); (11) General Prelogar’s closing argument opposing the grant of an antitrust exemption to the NCAA (TR, 86-87); (12) Waxman’s closing rebuttal argument for NCAA control of the Iron Throne of college sports regulation and Justice Robert’s submission of the case at the close of all arguments (TR, 90).