The Supreme Court’s unanimous holding that the NCAA violated antitrust laws—colluding to deny certain education-related benefits to student-athletes—heralds a revolution in college sports. Just as a ruling in the NCAA’s favor three years ago (Murphy v. NCAA) removed the federal impediment to sports gambling across the country, today’s case likely ushers in compensation of “amateur” athletes in all but name.

Indeed, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence—recall that he was a collegiate athlete, and remains a big fan and youth coach—invites litigation over broader compensation restrictions.

That’s a good thing; for too long sports grandees have profited off the labors of youngsters. There’s more than enough money to go around, so why not give some to the kids who generate it?

Among other benefits, it wouldn’t hurt to cure some socioeconomic injustice—most of the players in the “revenue sports” of football and basketball are poor and black, and they get nothing if they don’t make the pros (like most don’t)—while allowing the free market to flourish. (Football and basketball should really be spun off into minor professional leagues, but that’s a separate discussion.)

It would also eliminate the hypocrisy that a Duke-Carolina game is no different than Princeton-Rutgers a century ago. The Olympics are a lot better off for having thrown off their pretense of amateurism, and so would be the NCAA.