You have permission to edit this article.

Column: How does the Supreme Court ruling influence future legislation?

  • Updated
  • Comments

Boone Pickens stands tall outside his namesake's stadium as students return to school for the first day of the semester.

Shawne Alston waited seven years. 

In 2014, the former West Virginia football player filed a lawsuit against the NCAA fighting for student athletes to be able to receive educational compensation from universities. 

On Monday, he received his verdict. The Supreme Court of the United States voted unanimously on the NCAA vs. Alston case in favor of student athletes and how they can be compensated by their respective universities. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion, stating the NCAA violated antitrust laws because of the restrictions they placed in regard to athletes receiving educational benefits from their universities. 

The ruling allows schools unlimited compensation to student athletes if it is related to an athletes education. 

If they need a laptop for class, the school can give it to them. Study abroad? The school can now assist. More scholarship money? Athletes can now accept it. Internships? Also covered now. 

You get the idea. 

It is a narrow win for athletes, but the ruling could be the first domino to fall toward them earning the right to make money off their NIL (name, image and likeness). 

The State of California first presented this idea by considering passing a bill allowing athletes to license their NIL, but schools quickly shied away from supporting this after NCAA President Mark Emmert said the organization would consider banning schools allowing athletes to profit off their NIL. 

The writing is on the wall now. 

It hasn't happened yet, but it is inevitable one day amateur athletes will be able to license themselves. This legislation is the first big step in that direction.