BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 64,520
- Reaction score
- 23,798
- Points
- 113
Per Amanda:
The House v. NCAA plaintiff attorneys are asking a federal judge to settle a dispute over the NIL deal approval process. If they prevail, it could mean the end of any semblance of a salary cap for Division I athletic departments.
On Monday, plaintiff attorneys Jeff Kessler and Steve Berman filed a motion requesting a court order prohibiting the College Sports Commission from considering multimedia rights holders and others to be classified as “associated entities”—the designation held by boosters and collectives that requires extra scrutiny.
The motion calls for a hearing on May 27.
The filing says the CSC was created to “review the subset of Class Members’ NIL agreements with Associated Entities or Individuals to confirm that the deals are for a valid business purpose and fall within a fair market range of compensation. The CSC, however, has instead been scrutinizing virtually every NIL agreement with a Class Member. The result is an over-zealous, over-bureaucratic, overreach that is delaying and rejecting deals that should never have been reviewed in the first place.”
In a statement to Front Office Sports Monday night, the CSC defended its position, calling its application of the rules “straightforward and fact-based.” CEO Bryan Seeley said in a subsequent interview with FOS that the timing “was no coincidence,” and that it was a direct attempt to circumvent the established arbitration process; an arbitration is set for later this month addressing the exact question of whether an MMR partner is an associated entity.
The House v. NCAA settlement, which took effect last summer, allowed all Division I schools to share revenue with players for the first time—up to $20.5 million per athletic department. But it also implemented new restrictions on NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals requiring all deals over $600 be submitted through the NIL Go reporting system and scrutinized to ensure they’re not “pay-for-play” in disguise. The College Sports Commission was created to oversee and enforce these rules; meanwhile, House plaintiff lawyers remain involved in overseeing the settlement’s implementation.
The heart of the current issue is over the definition of “associated entities.” The settlement didn’t explicitly prohibit deals brought to athletes through NIL collectives or boosters, but it did allow for these organizations or people to be designated “associated entities.” The firms have a relationship with a school with the goal of procuring deals for players; they also handle athletes’ payments (as “facilitators”). As a result, their deals are subject to extra review to ensure they aren’t in effect pay-for-play.
frontofficesports.com
Go Gophers!!
The House v. NCAA plaintiff attorneys are asking a federal judge to settle a dispute over the NIL deal approval process. If they prevail, it could mean the end of any semblance of a salary cap for Division I athletic departments.
On Monday, plaintiff attorneys Jeff Kessler and Steve Berman filed a motion requesting a court order prohibiting the College Sports Commission from considering multimedia rights holders and others to be classified as “associated entities”—the designation held by boosters and collectives that requires extra scrutiny.
The motion calls for a hearing on May 27.
The filing says the CSC was created to “review the subset of Class Members’ NIL agreements with Associated Entities or Individuals to confirm that the deals are for a valid business purpose and fall within a fair market range of compensation. The CSC, however, has instead been scrutinizing virtually every NIL agreement with a Class Member. The result is an over-zealous, over-bureaucratic, overreach that is delaying and rejecting deals that should never have been reviewed in the first place.”
In a statement to Front Office Sports Monday night, the CSC defended its position, calling its application of the rules “straightforward and fact-based.” CEO Bryan Seeley said in a subsequent interview with FOS that the timing “was no coincidence,” and that it was a direct attempt to circumvent the established arbitration process; an arbitration is set for later this month addressing the exact question of whether an MMR partner is an associated entity.
The House v. NCAA settlement, which took effect last summer, allowed all Division I schools to share revenue with players for the first time—up to $20.5 million per athletic department. But it also implemented new restrictions on NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals requiring all deals over $600 be submitted through the NIL Go reporting system and scrutinized to ensure they’re not “pay-for-play” in disguise. The College Sports Commission was created to oversee and enforce these rules; meanwhile, House plaintiff lawyers remain involved in overseeing the settlement’s implementation.
The heart of the current issue is over the definition of “associated entities.” The settlement didn’t explicitly prohibit deals brought to athletes through NIL collectives or boosters, but it did allow for these organizations or people to be designated “associated entities.” The firms have a relationship with a school with the goal of procuring deals for players; they also handle athletes’ payments (as “facilitators”). As a result, their deals are subject to extra review to ensure they aren’t in effect pay-for-play.
Dispute Over NIL Go Could End Any Semblance of a Salary Cap
Attorneys asked the court to prohibit third-party companies from being subject to extra scrutiny by the College Sports Commission.
frontofficesports.com
Go Gophers!!