Leave it to the NCAA to bring together the Supreme Court.

There was no beating around the bush when it came to the court case known as National Collegiate Athletic Assn. vs. Alston. Unanimously in a 9-0 decision, the highest court in the land ruled Monday that college athletes cannot be prohibited from receiving benefits relating to their education. Although the Supreme Court didn’t (officially) wade in the waters as to whether colleges have a legal obligation to compensate its athletes as employees, it did level its hammer on an organization that has long advocated against a pay for play concept.

The Supreme Court’s decision states that those on an athletic scholarship cannot be restricted from receiving education-related benefits like laptops and paid internships. But in doing so, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that took this matter a step further, possibly signaling the direction the NCAA is inevitably heading in the months and years ahead.

After writing that U.S. businesses could never skate free from paying their employees “a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” while wondering aloud if the NCAA is in violation of antitrust laws, Kavanaugh lambasted the organization for what he sees as a form of hypocrisy.

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work.”

Given the language in this opinion, combined with the fact that all nine justices ruled in unison with one another, the NCAA’s old days sure look to be coming to an end.

In the short term, the Supreme Court’s decision won’t dictate much of anything.

However, all eyes are now on the next drastic change coming to college athletics, which is in the form of name, image and likeness legislation. For now, many states have either already written NIL legislation or have it in the pipeline. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed such legislation in May as it will become law on July 1.

This means college athletes in the state of Georgia will be able to use their likeness to make money on their own time. Previously, college athletes have been barred from using their celebrity for monetary gain.

The Athens Banner-Herald recently wrote about UGA athletes having introductory discussions relating to endorsement opportunities. TJ Callaway, who owns the local clothing outfitter Onward Reserve, told the Banner-Herald that he has spoken with multiple UGA players about potential endorsement opportunities. Considering high-profile college athletes tend to have tens of thousands of followers on social media, if not more, this is an avenue both business and players will surely take advantage of. The athletes can make money and the businesses can get their products in front of potential new customers.

Congress may ultimately step in and finalize a national name, image and likeness bill when it’s all said and done. And that’s something the NCAA would prefer since it would standardize the practice across the country.

Unfortunately for the NCAA—and fortunately for the college athlete—this isn’t going to end at name, image and likeness.

Kavanaugh and the other justices sent a crystal clear message to the NCAA with this ruling. Either pay the players additional cash that represents their market value or risk a sizable and embarrassing judgment at the hands of the Supreme Court at a later date.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the dominos continue to fall. With Georgia operating at a budget of $150 million, it would seemingly be in a position to navigate these waters much better than a program that is in an uncertain or poor financial situation.

As the Supreme Court ruling signified, programs paying players is destined to become a reality down the road. At this point it's not a matter of if.

It’s when.