[Goose]

The existence of multiple conferences with different rules might offer some leeway to argue that players have the choice to transfer to a more permissive conference where they might be able to earn more money.

I am sure that argument can be made, but it is moot. Attempting to restrain trade is illegal even if you don't universally succeed. For that matter, the NCAA could have argued you don't need to be a member of the NCAA, which is absolutely true. However, if you are not, finding credible opponents is tough.

It’s hard to know where this will all lead.  We have had some lawsuits that have clearly told us that the system as it had existed was illegal, but we haven’t yet tested the bounds of that, and we don’t know how the system might evolve to fit within the law better.  The Supreme Court’s ruling hinted that there is more to come, but was still pretty narrow.  They (especially Kavenough) hinted that there could be more to come, but it is notable that the majority still chose to go with a narrow ruling.



BC

I think it is pretty clear what the court is saying. The current sports governance system is and always was illegal. They are slow-rolling it as much as possible (narrow interpretations to limit precedents as much as possible) to give congress and the schools a chance to figure out what legislation would work and would be constitutional. Nothing says the NCAA can't be given an anti-trust exemption (for example). In the current political climate however, probably not happening.

[Goose]

The existence of multiple conferences with different rules might offer some leeway to argue that players have the choice to transfer to a more permissive conference where they might be able to earn more money.

I am sure that argument can be made, but it is moot. Attempting to restrain trade is illegal even if you don't universally succeed. For that matter, the NCAA could have argued you don't need to be a member of the NCAA, which is absolutely true. However, if you are not, finding credible opponents is tough.

It’s hard to know where this will all lead.  We have had some lawsuits that have clearly told us that the system as it had existed was illegal, but we haven’t yet tested the bounds of that, and we don’t know how the system might evolve to fit within the law better.  The Supreme Court’s ruling hinted that there is more to come, but was still pretty narrow.  They (especially Kavenough) hinted that there could be more to come, but it is notable that the majority still chose to go with a narrow ruling.



BC

I think it is pretty clear what the court is saying. The current sports governance system is and always was illegal. They are slow-rolling it as much as possible (narrow interpretations to limit precedents as much as possible) to give congress and the schools a chance to figure out what legislation would work and would be constitutional. Nothing says the NCAA can't be given an anti-trust exemption (for example). In the current political climate however, probably not happening.