The Securities and Exchange Commission recently approved a proposal by the Nasdaq to diversify corporate boards. The Nasdaq’s proposed rule is aspirational, requiring disclosure of compliance or an explanation of non-compliance. However, the proposal has drawn heated debate in both political and business circles, with some arguing for needed integration of corporate boards, and others arguing that the policy is racially discriminatory.
Eurweb highlights Partner Patrick Bradford’s contribution to the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.A.A. v Alston, noting that his larger contribution is to the African American community as a whole. This decision opens the door for college athletes to one day realize full economic rights and marks a fundamental shift away from the exploitation of young black labor.
Bradford Edwards & Varlack LLP is proud to introduce our 2021 class of summer interns, Cassandra Cappiello, Shanna A. Joseph and Jahi Liburd!
Partner Patrick Bradford speaks to NPR on the lasting impact of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA cannot stop universities from giving student-athletes education-related benefits.
Bradford Edwards & Varlack LLP is mentioned in New Yorker magazine, which highlights several pivotal Supreme Court cases that arose against the backdrop of the 2020 pandemic and the recent presidential election. Among the noteworthy topics was the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in N.C.A.A. v. Alston, which struck down N.C.A.A. restrictions on education-related benefits for college athletes.
Tillman Breckenridge is quoted in Law.com as giving “all credit to Patrick Bradford for starting things up and really pushing to get the amicus brief,” submitted to the Supreme Court in N.C.A.A. v. Alston, “across the finish line.” Bradford’s efforts not only targeted the anti-competitive practices of the N.C.A.A. but also served to emphasize the exploitation of young black athletes and the disparate impact of N.C.A.A. regulations on African American communities as a whole.
Partner Patrick Bradford is touted by Reuters as having “organized the effort” to expose the N.C.A.A.’s anticompetitive conduct in the amicus brief written for N.C.A.A. v. Alston, a brief which earned a citation from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion.
Today a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, upheld a 9th Circuit decision that the NCAA’s rules for compensating Division I football and basketball players are subject to a full Rule of Reason analysis, and that NCAA conferences and school may permit certain education-related benefits.
The underlying decision involved a district court’s injunction of restrictions by NCAA conferences and schools that imposed caps on education-related benefits to athletes, such as rules that limit scholarships for graduate or vocational school, payments for academic tutoring, or paid post-eligibility internships. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and the NCAA appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s opinion upheld the lower courts’ findings that providing certain education-related benefits to students would not blur the line between college and professional sports, and therefore would not lead to a decrease in viewership for college games on television.
Partner, Denver Edwards, co-author of the amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in N.C.A.A. v Alston, is quoted in Law360 discussing economic productivity and opportunity for college athletes. Edwards, a former college athlete himself, discusses that marketing is “incredibly important because in the time that you are most productive, these students are able to maximize their economic productivity and be able to go forward and support themselves.”
Join partner Patrick A. Bradford and fellow speakers Gordon McGrath, Sheila Adams, and Christopher Wilson as they discuss the United States Supreme Court case of Alston v. NCAA and the current trends in antitrust litigation at the BIHC Network’s Virtual Regional Summit – Elevating Black Excellence: Antitrust panel.
- Page 1 of 2