Vote expected this week to settle NCAA class-action lawsuit

[Great Plains Gopher]

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

on the collectives - I've seen people speculating that the "pay for play" form of NIL will be rolled into the revenue-sharing system and administered through the schools, which would essentially eliminate the collectives.

but I've also seen people speculating that the collectives will continue to operate as a supplement to the official revenue-sharing. it all depends on how the details are worked out over the next 6 to 9 months.

either way, I presume that individual athletes will retain the right to pursue their own personal NIL deals for jerseys, posters, endorsements, camps, autograph signings, etc.

IF that were to happen we might get a better idea of the actual number and amount of deals out there. Will it eliminate the bagmen funneling donations to Big21 LLC though, if the official channel will “ask questions” and throw up compliance roadblocks. And, I have questions on the ability of a suddenly cash flow poor NCAA and athletic departments to enforce any rules or their incentive to enforce any rules.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.

Already reading diametrically opposed opinions on distributions and eg Title IX or non-rev players. Some are already allowing themselves to think about the money.

The math is pretty startling though. If a school with say, 600 athletes divides a hypothetical $20M equally that’s $33K each/yr. If 96% goes to football/basketball players that’s $198k each/yr. Assumes equal divisions. The initial euphoria over the settlement will soon lead to warfare over equal pay. Eligibility challenges. Sounds like the settlement gives no guidance, each school or conference is on the hook to decide…

 

[mngg11]

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.

From a strictly black and white perspective, I can't disagree with your statement that the NCAA had it right in the beginning with full rides being it. However, the NCAA had a responsibility to alter their rules to let the players make money in different ways once the schools started making exponentially egregious amounts of cash in football and basketball. Instead, if a kid tried to sell his autograph, he got jettisoned from being able to compete at an amateur level. The NCAA failed to evolve. They could've made small changes for athletes to make money that would've maintained a sense of integrity and legitimacy throughout the system and keep everyone sated, but they didn't bother and here we are.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

From a strictly black and white perspective, I can't disagree with your statement that the NCAA had it right in the beginning with full rides being it. However, the NCAA had a responsibility to alter their rules to let the players make money in different ways once the schools started making exponentially egregious amounts of cash in football and basketball. Instead, if a kid tried to sell his autograph, he got jettisoned from being able to compete at an amateur level. The NCAA failed to evolve. They could've made small changes for athletes to make money that would've maintained a sense of integrity and legitimacy throughout the system and keep everyone sated, but they didn't bother and here we are.

This doesn’t really settle anything, but uncorks a lot of new questions.

Collusion to limit compensation is still at the top of the list. Instead of scholarships and cost of attendance insert capped and potentially fixed revenue payments. Some hope congress will now say, hey, sure they threw some fractional percentage, 20% instead of 10% of revenue -and likely in some unfair way - to the athletes and the schools are immune from antitrust law. Justice Kavanaugh would set down his Hamm’s before busting out in laughter.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Already reading diametrically opposed opinions on distributions and eg Title IX or non-rev players. Some are already allowing themselves to think about the money.

The math is pretty startling though. If a school with say, 600 athletes divides a hypothetical $20M equally that’s $33K each/yr. If 96% goes to football/basketball players that’s $198k each/yr. Assumes equal divisions. The initial euphoria over the settlement will soon lead to warfare over equal pay. Eligibility challenges. Sounds like the settlement gives no guidance, each school or conference is on the hook to decide…

Does it say that is the only money that can be used?

 

[Dave H]

Anyone who thinks Congress will do anything about this no matter who is in control needs to lay off the LSD...

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Does it say that is the only money that can be used?

If I’m understanding your question right then yes, there is a revenue “salary cap” at some percent (starts at 22%) of the 69 power conference school average revenues which was about 100M. That can include the existing cost of living payments. The 22% is in addition to scholarship costs estimated at 15% of average revenues for a P5. Obviously Ohio State can absorb the hit much easier than Minnesota.

So, combined costs are getting closer to the NFL’s ~50% revenue share except the college players have to share their revenue with 400-800 other athletes at their schools…and a laughably bloated administrative employee pool.

One can see where if players are compensated based on value that creates incentives for schools to cut costs and dead weight to extent allowable under law, if they want to compete in a marketplace. From the revenue players perspective if revenues are distributed equally across a department they are absolutely getting screwed which should stimulate interest in even more antitrust suits, but versus the schools and conferences this time. That’s why everyone is eager to get this donkey of a deal across the finish line. Hoping the players take the bait.

If somebody with ulterior motives is urging you to take the deal, it’s probably a bad one. What will Huma be Stahl be able to organize in the short time they have to help the players avoid this, opt out.

 

[kisarazu]

The future of non-revenue sports is going to be interesting.

 

[GopherMarroon]

I'm surprised this isn't getting more discussion.


"The $2.8 billion settlement in the House v. NCAA case, a landmark legal battle, has far-reaching implications anchored by revenue sharing and the expansion of roster sizes, which might also spark more legal battles with Title IX implications. In the immediate future, the legal settlement is transformative for players because not only will past athletes be compensated for prior restrictions on earning from their name, image, and likeness via the $2.8 billion settlement, but the agreement sets the stage for a future revenue-sharing model, a first in the NCAA's long history, benefiting thousands of collegiate athletes starting as soon as Fall 2025."

College athletes set to get $2.8 billion, revenue-sharing model in landmark House v. NCAA settlement

Despite the landmark settlement nearing, details surrounding roster sizes and Title IX remain unanswered

www.cbssports.com

"It also creates a new system that allows schools to use up to $21 million a year to pay student-athletes. Geoff Bennett discussed the deal with Pat Forde."

What the historic $2.8 billion settlement to pay NCAA players means for college sports

In a historic first, the NCAA and the nation’s Power Five conferences reached a deal to pay their athletes. The general terms of a settlement will see the NCAA pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years to nearly 14,000 players. It also creates a new system that allows schools to use up to...

www.pbs.org

 

[EasyThere Pilgrim]

Can anyone read this thread...and have any interest whatsoever in 'college' football?

 

[gopherphil]

I’m just curious, who gets the money?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Bump - for new developments. looks like the P4 conferences will be approving new roster and scholarship limits as part of the settlement of the House anti-trust case. some of this is different from what was previously being reported.

This from The Athletic:

The power conference commissioners have decided on roster limits that will be filed this week as part of the settlement in the House vs. NCAA case, which has to be approved by the court. Scholarship limits are being eliminated as part of the settlement, replaced by a roster limit system in which each team can choose to scholarship as many or as few athletes as it wants.

The football roster limit, as reported last week, will be 105, two sources briefed on the numbers confirmed. That’s an increase from the 85-player scholarship limit that has existed for decades but below the previous roster limit, which was 120 as of the start of the season.

Baseball, meanwhile, is seeing its number essentially triple: 34 will be the roster/scholarship limit, up from the 11.7 scholarship limit that has existed for decades.

Another twist, the sources confirmed, is all sports being allowed to split scholarships among players, the way baseball and other sports have done. For instance, a football team could use 105 roster spots, while having 85 on full scholarship and giving the other 20 half-scholarships or something along those lines.

The numbers in basketball are staying similar: Men’s and women’s teams will have a roster limit of 15. The current scholarship limit is 13.

Softball, much like baseball, is going way up, from a scholarship limit of 12 to a roster limit of 25. Volleyball is going from a 4.5 scholarship limit to a roster limit of 18.

-------
thoughts - this creates some very interesting and tough decisions for schools on how to allocate scholarships. If one school is willing or able to foot the bill for a full roster of scholarships, that could be a big recruiting and competitive advantage over another school that decides to give out fewer scholarships due to financial reasons.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

more info on proposed Anti-trust settlement. one of my questions has been - how does this impact NIL when schools are paying revenue-sharing directly to athletes? here are some potential answers from ESPN:

Athletes would still be able to make money from NIL deals with third parties, but the NCAA said the settlement will allow them to install a more "robust and effective enforcement and oversight program" to make sure those third-party deals are "legitimate NIL activity." Many athletes -- especially in football and basketball -- currently receive money from booster collectives, which have evolved to serve as outsourced payrolls to attract top players rather than payments for an athlete's actual value as an endorser. The NCAA hopes its new system will reduce those types of arrangements.

The NCAA plans to create a database of NIL deals to try to objectively assess whether arrangements between an athlete and a third party qualify as a legitimate endorsement deal. Several coaches and athletic directors have told ESPN in the past weeks that they anticipate some form of NIL payments from collectives will continue.

The settlement allows for the court to appoint a "special master" to rule on any disputes about new rules related to player compensation. This marks a notable change from the NCAA's history of using its own enforcement arm to determine if any athletes or schools are violating its compensation rules. The settlement would also establish an arbitration process for players and schools to object to any punishment under the new rules.

The two sides have not yet determined who will serve as the new enforcement entity or who will oversee the arbitration process of any future disputes.

------
so the goal is to try and make sure NIL is endorsement-based - Not pay-for-play. the devil is in the details. but IF there is legitimate enforcement, this could - I say could - reign in some of the excesses of pay-for-play masquerading as NIL.

 

[Jack jones]

One thing I hope evolves from this : athletes have only 4(yes 4) years to compete their eligibility. Like high school. Forget all the b.s. of transferring, red shirt, etc. You enroll at the U in 2025, after 2028 you are no longer eligible period, regardless. This is something the NCAA could enforce.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

One thing I hope evolves from this : athletes have only 4(yes 4) years to compete their eligibility. Like high school. Forget all the b.s. of transferring, red shirt, etc. You enroll at the U in 2025, after 2028 you are no longer eligible period, regardless. This is something the NCAA could enforce.

The arbitrary five to play 4 is a certain future antitrust lawsuit, TBD.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Bump - for new developments. looks like the P4 conferences will be approving new roster and scholarship limits as part of the settlement of the House anti-trust case. some of this is different from what was previously being reported.

This from The Athletic:

The power conference commissioners have decided on roster limits that will be filed this week as part of the settlement in the House vs. NCAA case, which has to be approved by the court. Scholarship limits are being eliminated as part of the settlement, replaced by a roster limit system in which each team can choose to scholarship as many or as few athletes as it wants.

The football roster limit, as reported last week, will be 105, two sources briefed on the numbers confirmed. That’s an increase from the 85-player scholarship limit that has existed for decades but below the previous roster limit, which was 120 as of the start of the season.

Baseball, meanwhile, is seeing its number essentially triple: 34 will be the roster/scholarship limit, up from the 11.7 scholarship limit that has existed for decades.

Another twist, the sources confirmed, is all sports being allowed to split scholarships among players, the way baseball and other sports have done. For instance, a football team could use 105 roster spots, while having 85 on full scholarship and giving the other 20 half-scholarships or something along those lines.

The numbers in basketball are staying similar: Men’s and women’s teams will have a roster limit of 15. The current scholarship limit is 13.

Softball, much like baseball, is going way up, from a scholarship limit of 12 to a roster limit of 25. Volleyball is going from a 4.5 scholarship limit to a roster limit of 18.

-------
thoughts - this creates some very interesting and tough decisions for schools on how to allocate scholarships. If one school is willing or able to foot the bill for a full roster of scholarships, that could be a big recruiting and competitive advantage over another school that decides to give out fewer scholarships due to financial reasons.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle I don’t see how the collusion to limit compensation ever passes antitrust scrutiny. Nice for the plaintiffs lawyers to finagle a very nice payday (claiming ~80M in billable hours and costs, plus 20-30% of the rest…, but this will never hold up, nor should it.

Is there -anything- in this turd that makes anyone really happy, from the NCAA to schools to the players? I suppose P5 benchwarmers getting some few Gs while their G5 counterparts count their $300 will be happy they got something, anything. The stars, not so much. The roster stuff is just bizarre. Someone explain THAT to me. Impetus? Why?

Note to players: you don’t HAVE to accept this you know. Organized player entities could do much, MUCH better.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Now that the genie is out of the bottle I don’t see how the collusion to limit compensation ever passes antitrust scrutiny. Nice for the plaintiffs lawyers to finagle a very nice payday (claiming ~80M in billable hours and costs, plus 20-30% of the rest…, but this will never hold up, nor should it.

Is there -anything- in this turd that makes anyone really happy, from the NCAA to schools to the players? I suppose P5 benchwarmers getting some few Gs while their G5 counterparts count their $300 will be happy they got something, anything. The stars, not so much. The roster stuff is just bizarre. Someone explain THAT to me. Impetus? Why?

Note to players: you don’t HAVE to accept this you know. Organized player entities could do much, MUCH better.

Pomp - (I am not a spokesperson for the NCAA - just my opinion) as I understand it, the anti-trust case is about the collusion to limit compensation. the schools got all the money and the players got none. so, as I understand it, this case is meant to compensate players for lost earnings opportunities. the suit covers D1 athletes going back to 2016. the bulk of the money will go to football and basketball, because, in theory, those are the athletes with the most earnings potential, therefore they were the ones who were most impacted.

now - this case does Not include the question of whether athletes can be considered employees - that is a separate matter, yet to be determined/adjudicated.

as far as the roster limits - my understanding is that this is being done in the name of fairness - to put all sports on the same basis. as opposed to FB players all get full scholarships while other athletes get partial scholarships. now, all sports can decided how to allocate scholarships - full or partial - but have to remain within the roster limits.

it's not perfect. I don't know that any settlement or compromise could be perfect. in almost every compromise, people walk away unhappy with some aspect.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Pomp - (I am not a spokesperson for the NCAA - just my opinion) as I understand it, the anti-trust case is about the collusion to limit compensation. the schools got all the money and the players got none. so, as I understand it, this case is meant to compensate players for lost earnings opportunities. the suit covers D1 athletes going back to 2016. the bulk of the money will go to football and basketball, because, in theory, those are the athletes with the most earnings potential, therefore they were the ones who were most impacted.

now - this case does Not include the question of whether athletes can be considered employees - that is a separate matter, yet to be determined/adjudicated.

as far as the roster limits - my understanding is that this is being done in the name of fairness - to put all sports on the same basis. as opposed to FB players all get full scholarships while other athletes get partial scholarships. now, all sports can decided how to allocate scholarships - full or partial - but have to remain within the roster limits.

it's not perfect. I don't know that any settlement or compromise could be perfect. in almost every compromise, people walk away unhappy with some aspect.

What I’ve heard from a few (who may be guessing) is that the roster limit issue has been litigated previously and this is an attempt to get out ahead of it. Fine, but there are a hundred other antitrust issues remaining here….I don’t get it. It seems odd they focused on that one issue.

Looking at the 40,000 foot breakdown on the plaintiff website it’s very interesting to see how they are splitting the baby. P5 women’s basketball players will apparently receive an average of 35K in “backpay” while their G5 counterparts receive double or single digits. How many women’s BB programs are revenue positive? I don’t know the answer. There will be a “special master” to field compensation disputes. Oh boy. The schools want to control and police NIL using a third party enforcement organization that allow “market rates” for independent contractors. OK. That defies the common sense rule. The market is the market. These are national figure athletes. Good luck. Lawsuits a’coming.

The collusion to limit future media revenue. Lawsuits. No guidance on Title IX compliant distributions. Lawsuits. Football players getting shafted. Lawsuits.

There’s still time to pull the plug on this thing, guys. Who’s going to lead the effort? Jason Stahl? What a time to be alive.

NCAA Student-Athlete Name, Image and Likeness Settlement FAQs | Hagens Berman

.padded-table td,.padded-table th{ padding:12px 4px 0px 4px; } NCAA NIL Settlement Frequently Asked Questions Key Terms

www.hbsslaw.com

 

[Pompous Elitist]

With apologies to the people at ESPN, Yahoo, etc this is the most comprehensive breakdown I’ve seen, unless someone wants to wade through hundreds of pages of lawyer-talk.

Breaking Down the House Settlement for Back Pay and Revenue Sharing

Breaking down the terms that are most important for administrators, coaches, collectives and athletes to know about the House settlement.

businessofcollegesports.com

 

[GopherMarroon]

more info on proposed Anti-trust settlement. one of my questions has been - how does this impact NIL when schools are paying revenue-sharing directly to athletes? here are some potential answers from ESPN:

Athletes would still be able to make money from NIL deals with third parties, but the NCAA said the settlement will allow them to install a more "robust and effective enforcement and oversight program" to make sure those third-party deals are "legitimate NIL activity." Many athletes -- especially in football and basketball -- currently receive money from booster collectives, which have evolved to serve as outsourced payrolls to attract top players rather than payments for an athlete's actual value as an endorser. The NCAA hopes its new system will reduce those types of arrangements.

The NCAA plans to create a database of NIL deals to try to objectively assess whether arrangements between an athlete and a third party qualify as a legitimate endorsement deal. Several coaches and athletic directors have told ESPN in the past weeks that they anticipate some form of NIL payments from collectives will continue.

The settlement allows for the court to appoint a "special master" to rule on any disputes about new rules related to player compensation. This marks a notable change from the NCAA's history of using its own enforcement arm to determine if any athletes or schools are violating its compensation rules. The settlement would also establish an arbitration process for players and schools to object to any punishment under the new rules.

The two sides have not yet determined who will serve as the new enforcement entity or who will oversee the arbitration process of any future disputes.

------
so the goal is to try and make sure NIL is endorsement-based - Not pay-for-play. the devil is in the details. but IF there is legitimate enforcement, this could - I say could - reign in some of the excesses of pay-for-play masquerading as NIL.

Really great stuff you posted. It is an enormous change.

 

[swede2]

(other issues to be resolved include how Title IX plays into this - and whether athletes would still be able to consider joining unions and seeking collective bargaining of payments/benefits. adjustments could also be made to scholarship rules - so a baseball team with 25 players would receive 25 full scholarships instead of splitting up 12 scholarships among 25 players. this could impact football by essentially doing away with walk-ons.)

Great. Diverting revenue from revenue sports to non-revenue sports. I foresee college athletes fighting amongst themselves. Football and to a lesser extent basketball are paying the athletic department bills on P4 college campuses. If I'm a football player one step closer to CTE with every lick, who do I want to share revenue with baseball? Or rowing? Or any other sport no one watches? I suspect that the football and basketball players are going to organize separately from non-revenue sports and fight against any efforts that diminishes their pot.

I wonder if, with the schools sharing revenue with the players if we'll see a plateau in coaching salaries? That'll be the new frontier. Schools will be paying the players and boosters will be paying coaching salaries.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Great. Diverting revenue from revenue sports to non-revenue sports. I foresee college athletes fighting amongst themselves. Football and to a lesser extent basketball are paying the athletic department bills on P4 college campuses. If I'm a football player one step closer to CTE with every lick, who do I want to share revenue with baseball? Or rowing? Or any other sport no one watches? I suspect that the football and basketball players are going to organize separately from non-revenue sports and fight against any efforts that diminishes their pot.

I wonder if, with the schools sharing revenue with the players if we'll see a plateau in coaching salaries? That'll be the new frontier. Schools will be paying the players and boosters will be paying coaching salaries.

since I made the post you quoted, more info has come out on the House settlement. as I understand it, new "roster limits" will be set for each sport, and individual schools - apparently - will get to decide how many scholarships they are willing to fund. that is a budgeting question for schools - do they fund every scholarship allowed for football, basketball, etc?

in terms of the revenue side, for a P4 school, roughly 21% of total revenue will go for direct revenue sharing payments - mainly to football, men's and women's basketball. after that, each school has to figure out how to allocate its remaining revenue. I suspect that the non-revenue sports are not going to take revenue away from the big-money sports. if the non-revenue sports want to survive, they may need to do outside fund-raising - like getting a booster to endow a scholarship program for baseball or softball, for example. but I could also see some non-revenue sports getting cut or moved to club-level status. (providing this all survives any Title IX challenges).

 

[TruthSeeker]

They need a union and cba.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

since I made the post you quoted, more info has come out on the House settlement. as I understand it, new "roster limits" will be set for each sport, and individual schools - apparently - will get to decide how many scholarships they are willing to fund. that is a budgeting question for schools - do they fund every scholarship allowed for football, basketball, etc?

in terms of the revenue side, for a P4 school, roughly 21% of total revenue will go for direct revenue sharing payments - mainly to football, men's and women's basketball. after that, each school has to figure out how to allocate its remaining revenue. I suspect that the non-revenue sports are not going to take revenue away from the big-money sports. if the non-revenue sports want to survive, they may need to do outside fund-raising - like getting a booster to endow a scholarship program for baseball or softball, for example. but I could also see some non-revenue sports getting cut or moved to club-level status. (providing this all survives any Title IX challenges).

There is also the issue of existing Alston cost of attendance payments (up to 6K per scholarship athlete year) and new scholarship costs reducing the media revenue pool available to distribute to revenue sport athletes (the conferences and schools have yet to publicly state what proportion will stay with revenue sports).

I can’t imagine the football players are excited about their media money going towards 35K payments for women’s basketball (teams that lose hundreds of thousands to 1M+ each year) and Alston payments for 500-600+ other athletes, plus new scholarships reducing their payout.

Again, it’s not too late to go a different route, guys. I’d expect the movement towards organizing to accelerate amongst revenue positive players as they realize this is a bad deal. Then again, I thought AK would improve in 2023. So don’t look at me for accurate predictions. Maybe they’ll get starry-eyed at the prospect of any money being dangled.



Some benefits paid to athletes will count against the revenue sharing pool available:

• Any of the new payments/benefits provided to athletes under the settlement, including payments to athletes under contracts between the school and athlete for use of the athlete’s NIL (but does not include payments from third parties as a result of the school acting as marketing agent for the athlete or any funds from sublicensing the institution’s rights under a direct contract with the athlete)
• Alston Awards (capped at $2.5 million per year, per institution)
• Full cost-of-attendance value of new scholarships created by the new roster limits (capped at $2.5 million per year, per institution)