The Supreme Court’s majority characterizes the NCAA’s restrictions on televised college football…

The Supreme Court’s majority characterizes the NCAA’s
restrictions on televised college football games as commercial activity subject
to Sherman Act scrutiny. They conclude that NCAA members “compete against each
other to attract television revenues, not to mention fans and athletes,” and
are economic competitors. By contrast, in his dissent, Justice White, who played
college football at CU and finished second in the 1937 Heisman Trophy
balloting, emphasizes the “essentially non-economic nature of the NCAA’s
program of self regulation” and asserts that the majority erroneously
characterizes intercollegiate athletics “as a purely commercial venture in
which…universities participate solely, or even primarily, in the pursuit of
profits.” Tom McMillen, a former All-American college basketball player at the
University of Maryland and also a Congressman, argues that Board of Regents was
wrongly decided because “the NCAA’s loss of monopoly broadcast power [has led]
to an escalating competition for money among schools.” McMillen supports
Justice White’s dissent, arguing that “the NCAA monopoly ‘fosters the goal of
amateurism by spreading revenues among various schools and reducing the
financial incentives towards professionalism.’” Tom McMillen, “Whizzer” White
Had It Right When It Came to TV Money, NCAA News, May 27, 2002, at 4. Do you
agree or disagree?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
The Supreme Court’s majority characterizes the NCAA’s restrictions on televised college football…
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay