short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 20,823
- Reaction score
- 14,592
- Points
- 113
In case you missed it - the Judge overseeing the proposed settlement in the House anti-trust case has objected to some provisions of the agreement. If the agreement cannot be re-worked to meet the Judge's objections, the case could wind up going to trial, which would put the proposed revenue-sharing system on indefinite hold.
from ESPN:
A federal judge ordered the attorneys negotiating a major settlement that could reshape the business model of college sports to "go back to the drawing board" to resolve concerns she has about how the deal would limit the ways in which boosters can provide money to athletes.
Judge Claudia Wilken declined to grant preliminary approval to the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement Thursday. She said she was concerned with multiple parts of the terms of the deal. Chief among her worries was a clause that would require any money that boosters provide to athletes to be for a "valid business purpose."
"What are we going to do with this?" Wilken asked. "I found that taking things away from people is usually not too popular."
Wilken gave attorneys representing the NCAA and the plaintiff class of Division I athletes three weeks to confer and decide whether they could revise the language or need to scuttle the pending deal. NCAA lead attorney Rakesh Kilaru told the judge that the revised rules for how collectives operate are "a central part of the deal."
If the sides can't reach an agreement, all three cases that are part of the proposed settlement would proceed toward trial. The House v. NCAA case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2025 prior to the parties announcing a settlement.
--------
in English - the NCAA wants to impose new restrictions on "pay for play" NIL and require NIL deals to return to the original intent where players are compensated for the use of their Name, Image or Likeness. the Judge is objecting because she sees this as a restraint on players' ability to earn money.
some legal observers are speculating that the NCAA might be willing to say "bleep it" and hope to win the case at trial. either way, there would likely be appeals and the matter could wind up before the US Supreme Court. but if the case goes to trial, the proposed revenue-sharing payments would be postponed indefinitely - possibly for several years if the case winds through the appellate process.
from ESPN:
A federal judge ordered the attorneys negotiating a major settlement that could reshape the business model of college sports to "go back to the drawing board" to resolve concerns she has about how the deal would limit the ways in which boosters can provide money to athletes.
Judge Claudia Wilken declined to grant preliminary approval to the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement Thursday. She said she was concerned with multiple parts of the terms of the deal. Chief among her worries was a clause that would require any money that boosters provide to athletes to be for a "valid business purpose."
"What are we going to do with this?" Wilken asked. "I found that taking things away from people is usually not too popular."
Wilken gave attorneys representing the NCAA and the plaintiff class of Division I athletes three weeks to confer and decide whether they could revise the language or need to scuttle the pending deal. NCAA lead attorney Rakesh Kilaru told the judge that the revised rules for how collectives operate are "a central part of the deal."
If the sides can't reach an agreement, all three cases that are part of the proposed settlement would proceed toward trial. The House v. NCAA case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2025 prior to the parties announcing a settlement.
--------
in English - the NCAA wants to impose new restrictions on "pay for play" NIL and require NIL deals to return to the original intent where players are compensated for the use of their Name, Image or Likeness. the Judge is objecting because she sees this as a restraint on players' ability to earn money.
some legal observers are speculating that the NCAA might be willing to say "bleep it" and hope to win the case at trial. either way, there would likely be appeals and the matter could wind up before the US Supreme Court. but if the case goes to trial, the proposed revenue-sharing payments would be postponed indefinitely - possibly for several years if the case winds through the appellate process.
.