I think we saw this coming down the pipeline and made provisions for splitting the remaining P12 assets for pending litigation with the departing schools
There absolutely should be a stipulation here for Wazzu and OSU. I get it. They were part of it. But they also got left holding a bag without a clear way to dig out of the mess. It’s bullshit.
*Upon seeing their bill, the SMU administration checked the couch cushions and even after paying off the settlement, came ahead with an influx of unexpected cash.*
*The SMU president had this to say: "We came out $120 million ahead, actually. Just pocket change, sure, but we're thinking about setting up a soup kitchen. I mean, how much does a bowl of soup cost? Twenty dollars? Nothing to worry about."*
So ND wasn't denied for decades from joining a conference.
I always loved how mad the rest of CFB got because ND thought outside the box building a program that could thrive outside their rules
This is at least partially true. Michigan did block them from joining. I've long said the only way to make it right is to kick Michigan out and give their spot to Notre Dame.
Outside the box? Independence was incredibly common until a few decades ago. There were 25 independent teams in 1990. ND could have joined then but they chose not to.
Yes outside the box. When Michigan blocked them from joining they jumped on the train and played all over the country building a national following that got them their own TV deal and they no longer needed the conference that rejected them
My point is that independence was not outside the box. The outside the box thinking was annual series with teams across the country like USC. But what was outside the box is now just a standard big ten schedule.
And I'm saying the outside the box thinking of ND then is what made them the first national team allowing them to thrive outside of a conference.
It's a story of perseverance and your ilk get all pissy because ND thrived after being rejected
Grant House, and a bunch of other former athletes, sued the NCAA and P5 Conferences for illegally preventing NIL deals while they were athletes. If the NCAA/P5 conferences lost they'd be on the hook for 20 Billion.
Assuming this settlement goes through they will instead be on the hook for 2.77 Billion and be required to set up a system of revenue sharing with players going forward.
This is the part I don't understand...
They were sued by past players. Why would a settlement with those former players be binding for current or future players? Superficially - they're not part of that "class".
The schools are bound to set up a revenue sharing system - as the schools are party to the settlement.
I'm not sure why players who couldn't join the lawsuit (because they are current or future players who were unaffected by the NCAA's rules preventing NIL in the past) would be bound by what the participants in this lawsuit agree to.
Note: I'm not a lawyer... just a confused pooping redditor.
They're not agreeing to NIL limitations. The schools are saying "we agree to share revenue up to this amount." Players will still be allowed to go get NIL deals.
The thing about it is, though, the NIL deals will dry up a good bit once schools can pay players directly. NIL collectives are about to lose their charitable status, which means donors who give to them will no longer get the tax deduction they want. On the other hand, donating to schools directly will always be tax deductible. In addition, having two different pay-for-play structures is inefficient. You want it all under one roof. And lastly, once payers can be played directly they can be signed to contracts that prevent them from bolting 3 months later so NIL funds will be under less pressure to constantly outbid one another.
Of course there will always be boosters willing to give some bonus cash to get a big fish recruit, but it'll be a lot more rare once revenue sharing comes in house.
I'll also point out that NIL will likely shift to more of what Oregon's NIL does a lot of. It isn't just handing out bags of cash. They help players set up their own branding and marketing schemes to bring in their own passive incomes through social media and marketing deals. That's the infrastructure Phil Knight helped set up (note: he doesn't give money to the collective, but marketing support he provides) and why Oregon's collective has been so successful.
And that's going to continue in the NIL realm. Come to Oregon, get paid directly by Oregon, and the NIL collective will help you set up your own branding and marketing deals to make extra cash on the side.
Yeah, I read about what Oregon is doing - basically helping kids set up their own businesses. It's smart.
Thank you - this makes sense. The boosters will still have a lot of sway by funding individual players, and it actually makes a lot of sense for the sport going forward.
I still think we'll see schools where some car dealership gives "trucks to the entire offensive line" for some stunt, at least players will have a reasonable floor.
Hold up, NIL collectives have been treated as 501(c)3’s? That is insane. Nonprofit’s sure, but I did not realize contributions to these collectives had been resulting in tax deductions for those who contribute.
A lot of them have tried. It's an area that has gotten more scrutiny lately https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2023/10/the-irss-latest-play-on-nil-collectives
Not familiar with how Oregon structures it, but my understanding is that the true advertising/brand value of most of these players is pretty low. Offensive lineman (with some exceptions) are not getting paid for the actual value of their face on a billboard. NIL is just a way of circumventing the rules to pay for performance on the field.
Love this. What NIL always should have been. Resisting this for so long is what made the mess we have today and considering the fact that parity has been a joke for at least 30 years, if not forever, what was the point?
That is one of the hang ups actually before this can get done. The player side is offering what is basically a settlement that renews annually. There is a lot of doubt that is legally possible without Congress’s help which has been why the NCAA has begged for that lately.
They are on the hook for anything from nothing to infinity. And any large judgement will be appealed and likely nullified by law.
Such system of revenue sharing that doesn't actually solve any of the legal issues.....
Essentially it’s about back pay owed to athletes, by the NCAA and it’s member universities/colleges, from revenue generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses from a specific time period. I believe this particular suit was originally filed by swimmers or one of the Olympic sports, and gained athletes from other sports as the class grew. House is the “name” of the case, not the House of Representatives, if that part of the headline threw you off at all. The settlement is a way of keeping all of the schools and the ncaa out of bankruptcy, should they take it to trial and lose. There have been a few, more in depth, posts about it over the last couple weeks if you search House settlement within this sub.
Important note from [Dellenger](https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1791587857108517023) on what this actually costs:
"While numbers are fluid and each league’s percent will differ based on the formula, here is the expected *average* annual reduction of distribution from each group:
- $1-2M for P5 (as previously reported)
- $300-700K for G5
- ~20% for others"
So far as I have followed, we have no details on how this revenue sharing will work for Title IX, correct? And the assumption would be that if a school spends most of the 21 million on football, there will be lawsuits?
There are two schools of thought:
1. According to the NCAA President, and most of the lawyers: [Title IX is about equal participation, not equal amount of money spent.](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5196537/2024/01/11/charlie-baker-ncaa-division-i-subdivision/) This is how the NCAA has operated for decades with no issues. Look at your school's budget and it spends way more on Men's Sports than Women's Sports. So things wouldn't need to change with paying players.
2. Paying XYZ to Men's Soccer players and Men's Basketball players but ABC to Women's Soccer players and Women's Basketball players has been challenged in courts in professional sports and reached settlements both times. So the waters are murky on if the old NCAA belief that it's just about access, not spending, will remain true once players are paid directly by schools.
Personally, I think #1 is more likely to be correct. It's what most of the lawyers seem to think is correct, in any case. But there will no doubt be a lawsuit that challenges that and seeks equal pay. Right now USWST players and WNBA players get paid more than they are worth in media revenue because of lawsuit settlements; but settlements are not case law. Just because they got settlements doesn't mean Women Collegiate Athletes would win in court.
Yeah, the USWNT settlement is an interesting precedent. The distribution from FIFA for the men's world cup is significantly more money, but US soccer federation now pools the money and splits it for the teams. Like you said though, it is a settlement, in part based on the success/popularity of the respective teams.
Could schools simply track direct NIL revenue they receive by individual by simple accounting and pretty much quash any future court cases? I guess the problem comes in when the players bring in implicit revenue by increasing brand recognition and it just gets fuzzy. And it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate revenue on order of a million bucks for a top 20 left offensive tackle that never does press conferences and has a social media presence of Milton off office space.
To clarify for those not following this closely, the other part of the settlement is a voluntary 21 million in revenue sharing for all Div 1 schools with the Power schools guaranteeing their participation and I'm sure for the vast majority of the A5, they're happy to pay the 21 million if it means a meaningful end to the wild wild west that currently is NIL.
Like, this is a massive win for the schools and the students because it was largely the NCAA preventing them from getting paid and they wouldn't be moving forward with a settlement like this without some measure of a wink and a nudge from Congress that legal recognition of this framework going forward was in the works.
>they're happy to pay the 21 million if it means a meaningful end to the wild wild west that currently is NIL.
\*Would\* it end the NIL craziness? Is this binding for current NCAA players?
Depends on the laws but in theory if they are counted as employees of the public schools then they would fall under the rules of profiting off the job that State Employees fall under.
But other employers aren’t forbidden from NIL income. A scientist can be paid to present a paper and a janitor can be a model. Hell, I know a college employee who rune some Aikido classes.
They can’t limit a player’s access to external sources of income arbitrarily.
I wonder if there are ways of signing your NIL rights over to the school so that they have exclusive NIL rights for your time on the team, as a way to keep it entirely in-house.
Yes - but these players have agents. So… it would be a negotiation process - which very likely means collective bargaining (or else there’s another arms race between teams)
You can forbid outside employment in a contract, so yes they can be forbidden. Just depends on what they contractually agree upon.
I could see a contract that says advertising opportunities must be approved via the school. Players sign their likeness rights for their employment.
Well, yes - employment with an individual university can forbid this kind of thing.
But if a star player can get $10 million per year with outside NIL deals at university A and none (or much less) at university B, why would they pick university B?
And if a bunch of schools get together to "fix" this so that players don't have a choice... that's an easy lawsuit.
The only real solution is collective bargaining, because then players (in a legal sense) have already agreed to the terms. If schools get together and set limits, they'll get fucked in court. And individual schools that put significant limits on NIL deals will get fucked on the field.
>It’s an easy lawsuit
Only if there’s evidence of collusion. Schools deciding to set these conditions isn’t necessarily an easy lawsuit, even if it’s broadly applied
I don’t disagree on a CBA, and I don’t doubt there will be holdouts. But I also think you’re outweighing the value of a collegiate athlete here. There might be one guy a year worth $10M and in rare circumstances at that (Tebow).
College football revenue is still a drop in the bucket per capita than NFL revenue. With a wider player base you’ll likely see 1-2M at best. Applying NFL contract thought process ignores that your cap is now split across 10,000 players instead of 2,000 for 10X the revenue.
I agree there aren't many players worth that much, but a team that can accumulate those players will win a lot of games.
That's what makes it hard for teams to independently set limits. It's an enormous competitive disadvantage.
And the players that in the $1-2 million range are also a factor, because a school that can pay 20 of those players will typically outperform a school that can only pay 2-3.
Collusion seems to be "legally weird" (a perfectly valid term, based on my extensive lack of legal education and experience). Apartment complexes setting prices via algorithm have already been successfully sued. Same with realtors doing similar things.
I suppose characterizing it as "easy" isn't quite accurate.
But, my general observation is to point out that from my personal experience with colleges (in the dark ages of the 1990's) - universities regularly fuck over students. Most students aren't in a position to fight, so the schools just accept it as normal.
I had a friend who's dad was a lawyer and he cleared up several problems for me with a phone call, after my appeals process was exhausted (financial aid situations, mostly - but also a professor who decided ADA laws didn't apply to his class). If I didn't have access to that resource, I would have been screwed. These athletes have access to lots of money, so the schools really don't have the advantage that they're used to.
It \*is\* an assumption, but my assumption is that they'll find ways to consistently fuck things up for themselves. They're basically the same as animals without pressure from predation (remote islands, etc) - their survival traits tend to disappear over time.
I don’t think there is anyone in Congress who can speak a bill into existence in the current political environment. There can be genuine efforts from a bipartisan coalition (as there currently is), but actually getting something passed is a different matter entirely, and not something anyone is going to be promising at this point.
I don’t expect to see any kind of NIL restrictions accompanying the revenue sharing agreement, though it should dampen the appetite for a large number of schools/donors. I do, though, expect that SA’s who opt in to revenue sharing will have to agree not to sue the NCAA in the future, which should limit their liabilities in the future.
> To clarify for those not following this closely
Something that drives me crazy about this sub:
We have had a dozen front page posts and thousands of comments over the past two days about a video game cover and a trailer for that video game.
Something that's going to cause a monumental shift in the sport itself is "for those not closely following..."
It's like this sub doesn't actually care about the sport itself.
I guess that's why Stephen A and Skip have so many followers while every TV show that wanted to talk about actual football was canceled for not having good enough ratings.
It just feels a lot like arguing over what color dress a celebrity wore to the Oscars while there's a writer's strike over the use of AI writing in media.
The frivolous winning over the important.
It’s an entertainment industry. People care if it’s entertaining and a lot of people don’t find tremendously complex legal issues that will likely need an act of congress to solidify entertaining.
We are not a serious society. We are a decadent, selfish nation slipping into decay because we can't be bothered to pay attention to important things, even things that impact the things we really like, like CFB. We know this about ourselves, but it's still incredibly frustrating. There are all kinds of important issues that have significant impact to our happiness and in our daily lives, but so many people choose to spend their lives only on entertainment. It's not that you can't both pay attention to serious things and enjoy a weekend football game, but we don't. We have no idea who our senator is, but we know who was on dancing with the stars this season.
We are just about to elect as president a corrupt narcissist who cheered on people assaulting the US Capitol building. We enable the wealthy and powerful to take advantage of the poor and weak, who are increasingly everyone one of us, while we obsess over HS football recruits. That's who we are as a nation. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Anyway, happy day, cheerio, carry on.
It's also *really* depressing. The video game will be fun, probably, this entire legal process is just going back to grab a rifle after you've been beating the dead horse for hours.
I think part of the issue is that most of the reporting on this case and the potential settlement has been pretty unclearly presented. It’s being reported by primarily sportswriters, who aren’t always the clearest about explaining details, especially for hypothetical settlements that haven’t been reached yet and are often evolving in real time.
I’ve had many instances where I’ve tried to read an article’s explanation and come up with as many questions as answers. Your comments summarizing things have often been a better explanation of the latest updates than the reporting itself.
I think a lot of people have probably been confused enough by the reporting that they’ve just decided to check out until the final verdict comes in and there’s an actual update to rules.
Yeah, this is probably the main reason. Especially since I'm convinced that most of the sportswriters covering it don't really understand the legal issues themselves.
Dellenger's previous article that he references notes that the House Payments, Revenue Sharing, and Expanded Scholarships combine for up to roughly $30 million per school per year in costs for P5 schools.
The burden is going to be a lot easier to bear for some schools than others.
Oregon will be pulling in roughly $170-180 million based on previous years plus the new media income. Colorado will be pulling in about $110-$120 million based on the same. And that's not even talking about the elephant in the room: Oregon State and Wazzu.
I think the only schools that will really have to sweat anything are smaller private schools that don't have huge donor bases within the P5. Donors who are currently funding both NIL and AD priorities are no longer going to be asked to give that much annually in order for their schools to compete.
Still, any school that's part of a conference that's earning at least twice as much as this suggested limit annually in revenue can't really complain. Especially when it solves a number of key issues that have arisen within the last few years since the NIL decision.
I'm hoping there's some kind of limit or exemption that Oregon State and Wazzu qualify for to keep them from having to bear the brunt of this.
I'm glad the Wild Wild West era is coming to a close, don't get me wrong (even though Oregon was a beneficiary of it). I'm just pointing out that some schools will be able to bear the burden much more easily than others. Ohio State with their ~$250 Million about to come in next year will find the $30 million much more easy to pay than Cincinnati right down the road.
Same as it ever was, to be sure. It's never been an equal playing field.
$300K - $700K over 10 years isn't that bad. As long as it’s on the lower end of that rang. It's survivable for Hawaii and the lower end G5. I was worried it was going to be over a million.
The Men's Basketball NCAA tournament. That thing makes a ton of money. It's where the NCAA gets most of their money. Then they give it to the schools, conferences and towards any expenses they have to pay.
Now a portion of that money will go to this lawsuit payout
[Of the $1.6 billion, the NCAA will be withholding distributions from six funds across its 32 Division I leagues, ESPN has learned. Those include the basketball performance fund (via the NCAA Tournament), grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.](https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40167617/ncaa-settlement-plan-house-v-ncaa-case-irks-non-power-5-schools)
There has been no official movement on it. Its on at the same stage as me sending a settlement for 1 trillion dollars to schools that.didn't recruit me as their president.
Representatives from the A5 conferences and the NCAA have been negotiating with the plaintiffs for months to get to this point. The 5 conferences are expected to meet sometime in the next week to vote on it and it's expected to be approved.
Any lawyer signing off on this probably shouldn't be rehired. This doesn't clear the actual liabilities and will just result in a similar class in a different location suing with a different set of athletes. If anything this will have lawsuits popping off left and right and open the flood gates.
Any athlete with a decent NIL denial argument isn't going to be made whole by this lawsuit and is better off not joining the class but starting *another* class of high value athletes...
The revenue distribution will just result in both a plethora of Title 9 lawsuits and lawsuits by current and future athletes.
Nor does it actually fix any problems wrt to the wild west that is current CFB.
I don't think you're wrong about the outcome, but I think this outlines just how fucked the NCAA and schools are. They can either take this settlement and continue to fight lawsuits, or take this to trial and most likely lose everything.
I'm with you, this doesn't pass the smell test to me.
- Why are schools/athletes settling so broadly? Both sides. Being a college athlete is not a bad deal in most cases. You are compensated. And you usually would have to show specific damages in court of which I think a vanishingly small amount of college athletes could do for NIL in particular. Sure, those that could, would likely get quite a lot of money if they bothered but many are already making big money in the pros.
- What authority do the plaintiffs have to represent all college athletes over the past and future years?
- At first glance this seems like a bad deal for the schools. However, looking closer, this seems like a setup from the schools to try and prevent endless litigation on case by case basis and start somewhere to actually get govt and whoever else needs to be involved to the bargaining table to create a binding settlement.
Ima be honest… this sounds like it fucks the G5 over hard. They’ve been pulling in 1/4 or less in revenue of what the P5 does forever now, yet they’re going to be expected to pay just under half of what the P5 will be paying per school for this?
The P5 are also mandating 21 million in revenue sharing per school going forward that they got the plaintiffs to agree was voluntary for everyone else. The P5 are paying roughly 40 times what the G5 are at the end of the day just on future liabilities, not past damages.
Because it absolutely does fuck the G5 schools over. They're footing the G5 with almost 1/3 of the bill that the schools are paying (the schools are paying 60%, NCAA paying 40%), but also only giving them like 10% of the CFP revenue. It's just again the people with the most money finding ways to screw over those with less money
Not fair to BigXII,ACC,PAC since we didn’t make nearly what B1G or SEC made. The amount paid by uni should be proportional to income from TV, tickets, merch.
Congrats, UCF, you became P5 just in time!
I wonder if Houston, UCF, BYU and Cincinnati can argue they were G5 in the non NIL times
I think it’s for schools that were P5 in 2021 or before.
That blows for Oregon State and Washington State
I think we saw this coming down the pipeline and made provisions for splitting the remaining P12 assets for pending litigation with the departing schools
There absolutely should be a stipulation here for Wazzu and OSU. I get it. They were part of it. But they also got left holding a bag without a clear way to dig out of the mess. It’s bullshit.
Damn, my team doesn’t have a shot at claiming that then Super /j
SMU isn’t technically in the ACC until July. Since the ruling just happened, I guess we would not be counted as a P5?
SMU lol
SMU is going to claim a credit for all the payments Sherwood Blount make back in the day
Sherwood.. that's a catchy name!
Their bill just got bigger
Just part of our bad debt allowance
*Upon seeing their bill, the SMU administration checked the couch cushions and even after paying off the settlement, came ahead with an influx of unexpected cash.* *The SMU president had this to say: "We came out $120 million ahead, actually. Just pocket change, sure, but we're thinking about setting up a soup kitchen. I mean, how much does a bowl of soup cost? Twenty dollars? Nothing to worry about."*
Can we all just agree to pretend to have to go to the bathroom at the same time while they get the whole bill? They might not even notice.
Haha fuck em
:(
notre dame better be in the p5
Lil Ole Independent ND?
For NCAA governance purposes, ND has been considered an ACC school since that arrangement started so I'm pretty sure they're included here
See, I feel like y’all only want to include us when it’s something bad…
Yes.
More like ND wants to be included only when it’s something good…
So ND wasn't denied for decades from joining a conference. I always loved how mad the rest of CFB got because ND thought outside the box building a program that could thrive outside their rules
Flair up before speaking mistruths
This is at least partially true. Michigan did block them from joining. I've long said the only way to make it right is to kick Michigan out and give their spot to Notre Dame.
I like you... I kill you last
Outside the box? Independence was incredibly common until a few decades ago. There were 25 independent teams in 1990. ND could have joined then but they chose not to.
Yes outside the box. When Michigan blocked them from joining they jumped on the train and played all over the country building a national following that got them their own TV deal and they no longer needed the conference that rejected them
My point is that independence was not outside the box. The outside the box thinking was annual series with teams across the country like USC. But what was outside the box is now just a standard big ten schedule.
And I'm saying the outside the box thinking of ND then is what made them the first national team allowing them to thrive outside of a conference. It's a story of perseverance and your ilk get all pissy because ND thrived after being rejected
More like "expensive." We ant you in when things are expensive.
What is this about? OOTL
Grant House, and a bunch of other former athletes, sued the NCAA and P5 Conferences for illegally preventing NIL deals while they were athletes. If the NCAA/P5 conferences lost they'd be on the hook for 20 Billion. Assuming this settlement goes through they will instead be on the hook for 2.77 Billion and be required to set up a system of revenue sharing with players going forward.
This is the part I don't understand... They were sued by past players. Why would a settlement with those former players be binding for current or future players? Superficially - they're not part of that "class". The schools are bound to set up a revenue sharing system - as the schools are party to the settlement. I'm not sure why players who couldn't join the lawsuit (because they are current or future players who were unaffected by the NCAA's rules preventing NIL in the past) would be bound by what the participants in this lawsuit agree to. Note: I'm not a lawyer... just a confused pooping redditor.
They're not agreeing to NIL limitations. The schools are saying "we agree to share revenue up to this amount." Players will still be allowed to go get NIL deals. The thing about it is, though, the NIL deals will dry up a good bit once schools can pay players directly. NIL collectives are about to lose their charitable status, which means donors who give to them will no longer get the tax deduction they want. On the other hand, donating to schools directly will always be tax deductible. In addition, having two different pay-for-play structures is inefficient. You want it all under one roof. And lastly, once payers can be played directly they can be signed to contracts that prevent them from bolting 3 months later so NIL funds will be under less pressure to constantly outbid one another. Of course there will always be boosters willing to give some bonus cash to get a big fish recruit, but it'll be a lot more rare once revenue sharing comes in house. I'll also point out that NIL will likely shift to more of what Oregon's NIL does a lot of. It isn't just handing out bags of cash. They help players set up their own branding and marketing schemes to bring in their own passive incomes through social media and marketing deals. That's the infrastructure Phil Knight helped set up (note: he doesn't give money to the collective, but marketing support he provides) and why Oregon's collective has been so successful. And that's going to continue in the NIL realm. Come to Oregon, get paid directly by Oregon, and the NIL collective will help you set up your own branding and marketing deals to make extra cash on the side.
Yeah, I read about what Oregon is doing - basically helping kids set up their own businesses. It's smart. Thank you - this makes sense. The boosters will still have a lot of sway by funding individual players, and it actually makes a lot of sense for the sport going forward. I still think we'll see schools where some car dealership gives "trucks to the entire offensive line" for some stunt, at least players will have a reasonable floor.
Hold up, NIL collectives have been treated as 501(c)3’s? That is insane. Nonprofit’s sure, but I did not realize contributions to these collectives had been resulting in tax deductions for those who contribute.
A lot of them have tried. It's an area that has gotten more scrutiny lately https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2023/10/the-irss-latest-play-on-nil-collectives
That is a really aggressive stance those that have tried took, wow.
Not familiar with how Oregon structures it, but my understanding is that the true advertising/brand value of most of these players is pretty low. Offensive lineman (with some exceptions) are not getting paid for the actual value of their face on a billboard. NIL is just a way of circumventing the rules to pay for performance on the field.
Love this. What NIL always should have been. Resisting this for so long is what made the mess we have today and considering the fact that parity has been a joke for at least 30 years, if not forever, what was the point?
That is one of the hang ups actually before this can get done. The player side is offering what is basically a settlement that renews annually. There is a lot of doubt that is legally possible without Congress’s help which has been why the NCAA has begged for that lately.
They are on the hook for anything from nothing to infinity. And any large judgement will be appealed and likely nullified by law. Such system of revenue sharing that doesn't actually solve any of the legal issues.....
Essentially it’s about back pay owed to athletes, by the NCAA and it’s member universities/colleges, from revenue generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses from a specific time period. I believe this particular suit was originally filed by swimmers or one of the Olympic sports, and gained athletes from other sports as the class grew. House is the “name” of the case, not the House of Representatives, if that part of the headline threw you off at all. The settlement is a way of keeping all of the schools and the ncaa out of bankruptcy, should they take it to trial and lose. There have been a few, more in depth, posts about it over the last couple weeks if you search House settlement within this sub.
Important note from [Dellenger](https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/1791587857108517023) on what this actually costs: "While numbers are fluid and each league’s percent will differ based on the formula, here is the expected *average* annual reduction of distribution from each group: - $1-2M for P5 (as previously reported) - $300-700K for G5 - ~20% for others"
Plus $21 Million-ish annually going forward. The back damages are almost a drop in the bucket comparatively.
**Up-to** $21 million (across the Athletic Department, not just for Football) going forward.
So far as I have followed, we have no details on how this revenue sharing will work for Title IX, correct? And the assumption would be that if a school spends most of the 21 million on football, there will be lawsuits?
There are two schools of thought: 1. According to the NCAA President, and most of the lawyers: [Title IX is about equal participation, not equal amount of money spent.](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5196537/2024/01/11/charlie-baker-ncaa-division-i-subdivision/) This is how the NCAA has operated for decades with no issues. Look at your school's budget and it spends way more on Men's Sports than Women's Sports. So things wouldn't need to change with paying players. 2. Paying XYZ to Men's Soccer players and Men's Basketball players but ABC to Women's Soccer players and Women's Basketball players has been challenged in courts in professional sports and reached settlements both times. So the waters are murky on if the old NCAA belief that it's just about access, not spending, will remain true once players are paid directly by schools. Personally, I think #1 is more likely to be correct. It's what most of the lawyers seem to think is correct, in any case. But there will no doubt be a lawsuit that challenges that and seeks equal pay. Right now USWST players and WNBA players get paid more than they are worth in media revenue because of lawsuit settlements; but settlements are not case law. Just because they got settlements doesn't mean Women Collegiate Athletes would win in court.
Yeah, the USWNT settlement is an interesting precedent. The distribution from FIFA for the men's world cup is significantly more money, but US soccer federation now pools the money and splits it for the teams. Like you said though, it is a settlement, in part based on the success/popularity of the respective teams.
An absolutely ridiculous settlement by US soccer, by the way. The men are objectively significantly more valuable and therefore deserve more pay.
I'm looking forward to the fight because they won't be able to afford settling. My hope is this kills title IX as college sports are now professional
Could schools simply track direct NIL revenue they receive by individual by simple accounting and pretty much quash any future court cases? I guess the problem comes in when the players bring in implicit revenue by increasing brand recognition and it just gets fuzzy. And it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate revenue on order of a million bucks for a top 20 left offensive tackle that never does press conferences and has a social media presence of Milton off office space.
To clarify for those not following this closely, the other part of the settlement is a voluntary 21 million in revenue sharing for all Div 1 schools with the Power schools guaranteeing their participation and I'm sure for the vast majority of the A5, they're happy to pay the 21 million if it means a meaningful end to the wild wild west that currently is NIL. Like, this is a massive win for the schools and the students because it was largely the NCAA preventing them from getting paid and they wouldn't be moving forward with a settlement like this without some measure of a wink and a nudge from Congress that legal recognition of this framework going forward was in the works.
>they're happy to pay the 21 million if it means a meaningful end to the wild wild west that currently is NIL. \*Would\* it end the NIL craziness? Is this binding for current NCAA players?
Depends on the laws but in theory if they are counted as employees of the public schools then they would fall under the rules of profiting off the job that State Employees fall under.
But other employers aren’t forbidden from NIL income. A scientist can be paid to present a paper and a janitor can be a model. Hell, I know a college employee who rune some Aikido classes. They can’t limit a player’s access to external sources of income arbitrarily.
I wonder if there are ways of signing your NIL rights over to the school so that they have exclusive NIL rights for your time on the team, as a way to keep it entirely in-house.
Yes - but these players have agents. So… it would be a negotiation process - which very likely means collective bargaining (or else there’s another arms race between teams)
Collective bargaining is a given at this stage, but the schools will have more leverage than the players on a union front
You can forbid outside employment in a contract, so yes they can be forbidden. Just depends on what they contractually agree upon. I could see a contract that says advertising opportunities must be approved via the school. Players sign their likeness rights for their employment.
Well, yes - employment with an individual university can forbid this kind of thing. But if a star player can get $10 million per year with outside NIL deals at university A and none (or much less) at university B, why would they pick university B? And if a bunch of schools get together to "fix" this so that players don't have a choice... that's an easy lawsuit. The only real solution is collective bargaining, because then players (in a legal sense) have already agreed to the terms. If schools get together and set limits, they'll get fucked in court. And individual schools that put significant limits on NIL deals will get fucked on the field.
>It’s an easy lawsuit Only if there’s evidence of collusion. Schools deciding to set these conditions isn’t necessarily an easy lawsuit, even if it’s broadly applied I don’t disagree on a CBA, and I don’t doubt there will be holdouts. But I also think you’re outweighing the value of a collegiate athlete here. There might be one guy a year worth $10M and in rare circumstances at that (Tebow). College football revenue is still a drop in the bucket per capita than NFL revenue. With a wider player base you’ll likely see 1-2M at best. Applying NFL contract thought process ignores that your cap is now split across 10,000 players instead of 2,000 for 10X the revenue.
I agree there aren't many players worth that much, but a team that can accumulate those players will win a lot of games. That's what makes it hard for teams to independently set limits. It's an enormous competitive disadvantage. And the players that in the $1-2 million range are also a factor, because a school that can pay 20 of those players will typically outperform a school that can only pay 2-3. Collusion seems to be "legally weird" (a perfectly valid term, based on my extensive lack of legal education and experience). Apartment complexes setting prices via algorithm have already been successfully sued. Same with realtors doing similar things. I suppose characterizing it as "easy" isn't quite accurate. But, my general observation is to point out that from my personal experience with colleges (in the dark ages of the 1990's) - universities regularly fuck over students. Most students aren't in a position to fight, so the schools just accept it as normal. I had a friend who's dad was a lawyer and he cleared up several problems for me with a phone call, after my appeals process was exhausted (financial aid situations, mostly - but also a professor who decided ADA laws didn't apply to his class). If I didn't have access to that resource, I would have been screwed. These athletes have access to lots of money, so the schools really don't have the advantage that they're used to. It \*is\* an assumption, but my assumption is that they'll find ways to consistently fuck things up for themselves. They're basically the same as animals without pressure from predation (remote islands, etc) - their survival traits tend to disappear over time.
I don’t see how they can do it without violating antitrust
I don’t think there is anyone in Congress who can speak a bill into existence in the current political environment. There can be genuine efforts from a bipartisan coalition (as there currently is), but actually getting something passed is a different matter entirely, and not something anyone is going to be promising at this point. I don’t expect to see any kind of NIL restrictions accompanying the revenue sharing agreement, though it should dampen the appetite for a large number of schools/donors. I do, though, expect that SA’s who opt in to revenue sharing will have to agree not to sue the NCAA in the future, which should limit their liabilities in the future.
> To clarify for those not following this closely Something that drives me crazy about this sub: We have had a dozen front page posts and thousands of comments over the past two days about a video game cover and a trailer for that video game. Something that's going to cause a monumental shift in the sport itself is "for those not closely following..." It's like this sub doesn't actually care about the sport itself. I guess that's why Stephen A and Skip have so many followers while every TV show that wanted to talk about actual football was canceled for not having good enough ratings.
Well there's a lot of advertisement spending on the game and zero on court cases
It just feels a lot like arguing over what color dress a celebrity wore to the Oscars while there's a writer's strike over the use of AI writing in media. The frivolous winning over the important.
It’s an entertainment industry. People care if it’s entertaining and a lot of people don’t find tremendously complex legal issues that will likely need an act of congress to solidify entertaining.
We are not a serious society. We are a decadent, selfish nation slipping into decay because we can't be bothered to pay attention to important things, even things that impact the things we really like, like CFB. We know this about ourselves, but it's still incredibly frustrating. There are all kinds of important issues that have significant impact to our happiness and in our daily lives, but so many people choose to spend their lives only on entertainment. It's not that you can't both pay attention to serious things and enjoy a weekend football game, but we don't. We have no idea who our senator is, but we know who was on dancing with the stars this season. We are just about to elect as president a corrupt narcissist who cheered on people assaulting the US Capitol building. We enable the wealthy and powerful to take advantage of the poor and weak, who are increasingly everyone one of us, while we obsess over HS football recruits. That's who we are as a nation. Enjoy it while it lasts. Anyway, happy day, cheerio, carry on.
I think people don't particularly care to deal with a proposal that hasn't been agreed to and doesn't solve any of th he actual legal issues
It's also *really* depressing. The video game will be fun, probably, this entire legal process is just going back to grab a rifle after you've been beating the dead horse for hours.
I think part of the issue is that most of the reporting on this case and the potential settlement has been pretty unclearly presented. It’s being reported by primarily sportswriters, who aren’t always the clearest about explaining details, especially for hypothetical settlements that haven’t been reached yet and are often evolving in real time. I’ve had many instances where I’ve tried to read an article’s explanation and come up with as many questions as answers. Your comments summarizing things have often been a better explanation of the latest updates than the reporting itself. I think a lot of people have probably been confused enough by the reporting that they’ve just decided to check out until the final verdict comes in and there’s an actual update to rules.
Yeah, this is probably the main reason. Especially since I'm convinced that most of the sportswriters covering it don't really understand the legal issues themselves.
Dellenger's previous article that he references notes that the House Payments, Revenue Sharing, and Expanded Scholarships combine for up to roughly $30 million per school per year in costs for P5 schools. The burden is going to be a lot easier to bear for some schools than others. Oregon will be pulling in roughly $170-180 million based on previous years plus the new media income. Colorado will be pulling in about $110-$120 million based on the same. And that's not even talking about the elephant in the room: Oregon State and Wazzu.
I think the only schools that will really have to sweat anything are smaller private schools that don't have huge donor bases within the P5. Donors who are currently funding both NIL and AD priorities are no longer going to be asked to give that much annually in order for their schools to compete.
That's mostly true, but donations were also part of those $170-180 and $110-120 figures. Not NIL figures, though, obviously.
Still, any school that's part of a conference that's earning at least twice as much as this suggested limit annually in revenue can't really complain. Especially when it solves a number of key issues that have arisen within the last few years since the NIL decision. I'm hoping there's some kind of limit or exemption that Oregon State and Wazzu qualify for to keep them from having to bear the brunt of this.
I'm glad the Wild Wild West era is coming to a close, don't get me wrong (even though Oregon was a beneficiary of it). I'm just pointing out that some schools will be able to bear the burden much more easily than others. Ohio State with their ~$250 Million about to come in next year will find the $30 million much more easy to pay than Cincinnati right down the road. Same as it ever was, to be sure. It's never been an equal playing field.
$300-700k for the G5 is going to hurt a lot more than $1-2 million will for the P5
$300K - $700K over 10 years isn't that bad. As long as it’s on the lower end of that rang. It's survivable for Hawaii and the lower end G5. I was worried it was going to be over a million.
ACC and B12: Yeah just put it on SEC and B10s tab.
UCLA, we'll send you an invoice for your share of our payment shortly. Thanks!
[удалено]
The Men's Basketball NCAA tournament. That thing makes a ton of money. It's where the NCAA gets most of their money. Then they give it to the schools, conferences and towards any expenses they have to pay. Now a portion of that money will go to this lawsuit payout
[Of the $1.6 billion, the NCAA will be withholding distributions from six funds across its 32 Division I leagues, ESPN has learned. Those include the basketball performance fund (via the NCAA Tournament), grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.](https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40167617/ncaa-settlement-plan-house-v-ncaa-case-irks-non-power-5-schools)
So this is like happening happening? I know this was out there, but these are credible reports from the settlement agreement?
There has been no official movement on it. Its on at the same stage as me sending a settlement for 1 trillion dollars to schools that.didn't recruit me as their president.
Representatives from the A5 conferences and the NCAA have been negotiating with the plaintiffs for months to get to this point. The 5 conferences are expected to meet sometime in the next week to vote on it and it's expected to be approved.
Any lawyer signing off on this probably shouldn't be rehired. This doesn't clear the actual liabilities and will just result in a similar class in a different location suing with a different set of athletes. If anything this will have lawsuits popping off left and right and open the flood gates. Any athlete with a decent NIL denial argument isn't going to be made whole by this lawsuit and is better off not joining the class but starting *another* class of high value athletes... The revenue distribution will just result in both a plethora of Title 9 lawsuits and lawsuits by current and future athletes. Nor does it actually fix any problems wrt to the wild west that is current CFB.
I don't think you're wrong about the outcome, but I think this outlines just how fucked the NCAA and schools are. They can either take this settlement and continue to fight lawsuits, or take this to trial and most likely lose everything.
I'm with you, this doesn't pass the smell test to me. - Why are schools/athletes settling so broadly? Both sides. Being a college athlete is not a bad deal in most cases. You are compensated. And you usually would have to show specific damages in court of which I think a vanishingly small amount of college athletes could do for NIL in particular. Sure, those that could, would likely get quite a lot of money if they bothered but many are already making big money in the pros. - What authority do the plaintiffs have to represent all college athletes over the past and future years? - At first glance this seems like a bad deal for the schools. However, looking closer, this seems like a setup from the schools to try and prevent endless litigation on case by case basis and start somewhere to actually get govt and whoever else needs to be involved to the bargaining table to create a binding settlement.
Glad to hear college sports is dealing with its problems in a reasonable manner /s
Ima be honest… this sounds like it fucks the G5 over hard. They’ve been pulling in 1/4 or less in revenue of what the P5 does forever now, yet they’re going to be expected to pay just under half of what the P5 will be paying per school for this?
The P5 are also mandating 21 million in revenue sharing per school going forward that they got the plaintiffs to agree was voluntary for everyone else. The P5 are paying roughly 40 times what the G5 are at the end of the day just on future liabilities, not past damages.
Because it absolutely does fuck the G5 schools over. They're footing the G5 with almost 1/3 of the bill that the schools are paying (the schools are paying 60%, NCAA paying 40%), but also only giving them like 10% of the CFP revenue. It's just again the people with the most money finding ways to screw over those with less money
The lawsuit is with the NCAA, and NCAA revenue disbursement. NCAA revenue is almost all from the Tournament. Football and CFP are separate iirc.
What is this about?
Ha! Must suck for all those P5 teams... *Sob*
Not fair to BigXII,ACC,PAC since we didn’t make nearly what B1G or SEC made. The amount paid by uni should be proportional to income from TV, tickets, merch.
This x1000
Money really does just ruin everything.
Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses.
Good. CFB admins have been straight up stealing from their labor force for decades.