Author Rachel Bovard calls NCAA defense in Supreme Court case 'kind of hilarious'

Author Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, told Hill.TV that the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against the NCAA this past week is a welcome decision to a broken system.

The NCAA has come under fire for its defense of not paying athletes while the organization and its member universities make millions of dollars each year in revenue. Bovard lambasted the NCAA’s argument that they pay athletes “like crap” because the market requires it.

“The way it was argued was kind of hilarious,” she said.

Bovard said that the recent Supreme Court ruling is a first step in compensating student athletes.

“The case itself focused only on this really narrow area,” Bovard said, “which is colleges being able to offer post-graduate incentives, laptops, educational incentives.”

The decision, authored by Justice Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchWhat's that you smell in the Supreme Court? The Memo: Trump's justices look set to restrict abortion Five revealing quotes from Supreme Court abortion case  MORE, will let colleges and universities provide more school-related benefits to students.

Bovard predicted that the decision will open the door for the Supreme Court to address the issue of compensation for student-athletes at some point in the future.

“Both the Kavanaugh concurrence and the majority ruling offered by Justice Gorsuch made this point, that the colleges are making money hand over fist, while the athletes are being paid very little. And this is, per se, a violation of the antitrust law,” she said.

Bovard said the ruling invites future cases that could change the payment system for athletes who wish to make money while in school. However, the athletes will have to take initiative.

“The burden is on the athletes,” Bovard said, “the burden is on them to prove that there is anti-competitive intent here, that there’s control in a way that they can’t compete elsewhere.”