1. Athletes' legal challenges have led to technical legal victories and modest financial enhancements, but athletes still lack meaningful bargaining power compared to the NCAA and Power 5.

2. The NCAA has adeptly navigated the legal landscape, often turning perceived “losses” into strategic victories.

3. Despite significant legal expenses, the NCAA and Power 5 continue to flourish financially, suggesting their litigation strategy is more about maintaining control than financial survival.

4. Federal cases emphasize the need for gradual, measured changes in college sports, reflecting the judiciary's cautious approach to altering long-standing traditions and systems.

5. Courts have historically shown deference to the NCAA's amateurism model, often overlooking its inconsistencies with broader economic and civil rights principles.

6. Federal courts’ deference to amateurism is influenced by (1) well-intentioned but misplaced paternalism, (2) respect for the judgments of voluntary associations, (3) respect for venerable American institutions and traditions,  (4) fear of unintended consequences, and (5) utilitarian arguments that favor the interests of the “many” over the interests of the “few.”

7. The stark disparity in compensation and treatment of coaches versus athletes underlines the hypocrisy in the NCAA's amateurism arguments and the judiciary’s treatment of athletes.

8. Federal decisions have reinforced the NCAA's no legal duty stance, often concluding that the NCAA owes no direct duty of care or fiduciary responsibility to athletes.

9. The NCAA's reliance on revenues from March Madness to fund litigation underscores a complex economic dynamic where athletes fund legal efforts against their own interests.

10. Athletes in the revenue-producing sports (Power 5 football and men’s basketball) that fund the NCAA’s and Power 5’s litigation costs are disproportionately African-American

11. Is class representation in class action antitrust suits an adequate substitute for athlete representation through collective bargaining?

12: In the aftermath of NCAA v Alston, will federal courts’ historic deference to the NCAA and its conceptualization of amateurism continue?