On Thursday, the Southeastern Conference became the first Power 5 conference to react to the Alston decision.

This summer, the Supreme Court found that it was illegal for the NCAA to limit the amount of education-related benefits — like laptops or internships — that schools could offer athletes. While conferences could impose limits on their schools, the NCAA couldn’t.

But the SEC announced it will not impose extra limits on the educational benefits that its schools can offer.

• The conference has “determined it is appropriate for SEC athletics programs to have discretion and flexibility to provide support for student-athletes in their academic and athletic endeavors,” SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said in a statement. 
• “The SEC believes it is in the best interests of our student-athletes for these decisions to be made at the campus level rather than through conference policy.”

Shortly after the announcement, both Florida and Arkansas unveiled plans to provide extra educational benefits to athletes.

The decision makes perfect sense for the SEC, the most powerful conference: Some of the richest schools in the nation can afford to offer more benefits — and gain a recruiting advantage. The SEC clearly doesn’t want to get in the way of that.

The announcement also goes against precedent for college sports institutions, which have historically wanted to keep the tightest grip over rules and regulations. But now, it could spark a trend where other Power conferences refuse education compensation limits, too.

The Alston decision invited athletes to continue challenging the NCAA’s business model in court. A lawsuit called Johnson v. NCAA is the first to benefit.

First filed in 2019, the case argues Division I athletes should be considered employees and paid minimum wage. A similar case from 2016 got thrown out. But Johnson v. NCAA can go forward.

In August, a Pennsylvania judge refused a request to throw out the case by schools named as defendants. On Wednesday, that same judge refused another motion filed by the NCAA. 

That second decision was based on an analysis of athletes under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to Boise State law professor Sam Ehrlich. But the fact that neither the NCAA nor schools could get the case thrown out was clearly aided by Alston.

• To strike down lawsuits arguing athletes should get paid, the NCAA has used text from a decades-old Supreme Court decision that said, “In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid…”
• The Alston decision rejected this argument, saying that “these remarks do not suggest that courts must reflexively reject all challenges to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions.” That sets the stage for athletes to demand other forms of payment.
• The judge in Johnson v. NCAA even cited this language in the first “motion to dismiss” rejection.

There are still many steps before the case reaches trial. But if it does, a pro-athlete ruling could spell the end of the NCAA as we know it.