🚨 The FIRST athlete objections to the House v. NCAA proposal have been filed, highlighting some major concerns as this landmark case seeks to pave the way for revenue-sharing in college sports. Covered by Front Office Sports, this article gives a very solid overview of what’s going down: ⚖️ Legal Challenges: Ivy League athletes filed objections over language in the settlement that could force them to drop separate lawsuits if they join the House plaintiff class. 🚫 Antitrust Concerns: Lawyers in related cases argue that the proposed $2.8 billion settlement underestimates damages and includes unfair restrictions that may violate antitrust laws. ❌ Gender Equity Issues: Female athletes have raised objections, stating that the settlement disproportionately undervalues women’s sports, offering significantly lower compensation compared to their male counterparts. As this legal battle continues to unfold, the objections to the House v. NCAA proposal underscore a ton of complexities with athlete compensation, with more challenges likely to arise as the case progresses toward a final approval. 🏛️ #CollegeSports #NIL #AthleteRights #SportsMedia https://lnkd.in/e7TUVKPN
Ryan M. Cassidy’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Advocate-Author-Senior Consultant, Head Competition Law and Policy at Lex Indis Law Offices, New Delhi
US Antitrust Law: Class Action-Damages to College athletes: The deal covers three antitrust cases — including the class-action lawsuit known as House vs. the NCAA — that challenged NCAA compensation rules dating back to 2016. The plaintiffs claimed NCAA rules denied thousands of athletes the opportunity to earn millions of dollars off the use of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA lifted its ban on athletes earning money off their fame through endorsement and sponsorship deals in 2021. #competitionlaw #antitrustlaw https://lnkd.in/g3pNVEiC
Damages to college athletes to range from a few dollars to more than a million under settlement
timeswv.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Sports Attorney | Athlete Advocate: Passionate about empowering athletes & creating innovative solutions at intersection of sports, media, technology, & law. Sharing insights on athletes, NIL, and mental health. NY FL GA
Today is the day many have been waiting for in the ongoing #HousevNCAA settlement discussions. 🏈 🏀 ⚽ ⚾ 🎾 🏑 🏐 👟 ⛳ 🏊♂️ At 2:30pm PT/5:30pm ET, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, will hear arguments from attorneys for the NCAA, Power 5 Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, & SEC), & athletes represented as part of the House, Hubbard & Carter antitrust litigations. They are seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. 📝 Terms of the proposed settlement agreement would completely reshape college sports. Among other changes, it allows revenue sharing starting in 2025-26 school year. It also obligates the NCAA and member schools to pay $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years ($500 million of which would go to Plaintiffs' attorneys). 👩⚖️ During the hearing, Judge Wilken will have the opportunity to question parties about the settlement terms. She must determine if the settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate,” and has wide discretion. 📆 It will likely take at least several days, weeks, or even months for her to consider the proposed settlement terms and grant or deny the motion (or recommend changes). The decision can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. If settlement is preliminarily approved, there are more steps before any final approval is granted: 1️⃣ Affected athletes will be notified of settlement through postcard mailings & website (which will allow athletes to determine eligibility & amount they may receive. 2️⃣ Athletes have several months to opt out or raise further objections (if a redacted # of athletes opt out, it kills the deal) 3️⃣ Fairness hearing will be scheduled for athletes and others to raise objections to Judge before she grants final approval Formal objections have been submitted by plaintiffs in Colorado cases (Fontenot & Cornelio), current and former Division I women's athletes (rowers), Ivy league athletes, and the NCPA (objected after the deadline). HCU also attempted to intervene on the basis that schools in conferences not parties to the settlement (non P5) will likely foot a disproportionate amount of the bill for the damages, but it was rejected by the Court. Criticisms of the proposed settlement include: ❌not collectively bargained for by athletes ❌unfairly restricts future athletes (10 years into future) ❌far beyond the scope of underlying cases ❌conflicts of interest with attorneys bargaining for different groups of athletes ❌discrimination against women❌ #TitleIX implications ❌immigration law issues ❌attys' fee arrangements. Though one of the NCAA's goals for the proposed settlement was to avoid further litigation against the NCAA, this will not insulate NCAA from pending antitrust litigation, won't bar potential claims from future athletes and those who opt out, and will likely create more legal issues for the NCAA. Stay tuned for more #HouseSettlement updates as today’s hearing gets underway. 📷Photo Source: NCAA.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Founder of HEITNERLEGAL — Sports, Entertainment, Trademarks, Copyrights, Business, Litigation, Arbitration
I recently spoke with CBS Sports on #NIL. Here are the items I said to keep an eye on: (1) Does Congress ever pass legislation on the subject and will it include a section that affirmatively labels college athletes as not being employees? (2) What happens with the appeal on the Dartmouth basketball players' effort to unionize and collectively bargain for working conditions? (3) What will be the NLRB's decision in the pending action concerning UCLA and USC athletes? (4) Does Charlie Baker's proposal to allow colleges to directly compensate athletes for their NIL rights ever get passed? (5) How many states decide to follow in Virginia's footsteps and modify their NIL laws to allow schools to directly compensate athletes for their NIL rights despite an NCAA prohibition on same? (6) Will any pending lawsuit lead to a court's determination that athletes have been misclassified as not being employees, and what will be the economic consequences? Thoughts? #LinkedInSports https://lnkd.in/ej4XrRyz
NIL landscape in college sports changing: NCAA losing its grip, amateur vs. employee battle looms
cbssports.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
With collegiate name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights becoming more prevalent, legal questions on how athletes' freedom to exploit those rights, and how regulation of those freedoms work, are also on the rise. Allison First discusses how the Transfer Rule works in this new era of athlete freedom, the Department of Justice's involvement in regulating athlete transfers, and if the Transfer Rule can survive an antitrust challenge. https://lnkd.in/gZ5h7-K7
College Athlete Free Agency: Federal Injunction of NCAA Transfer Rules Ignores Their Procompetitive Justifications
https://sports-entertainment.brooklaw.edu
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The NCAA's transfer rule has never been a "hot button" issue for me because college athletes don't have "free agency" rights even if there are no transfer restrictions and the transfer rule has its pluses and minuses. Nevertheless, here are my questions about this lawsuit: 1. Is this lawsuit about college athletes' rights or is it about, as the Ohio AG says, college sports being "treated under the same kinds of laws and competition requirements other businesses have to live by"? If it's the latter, then getting rid of the transfer rule certainly wouldn't be accomplishing that objective whatsoever because other businesses have to live by a free market compensation system and they don't sell a product of league sports competition [are there any league sports that don't have a transfer rule in some shape or form?]. 2. How does the outcome of this lawsuit affect transfer rules at the high school level? And this is why the answer to the first question matters. If it's about athletes' rights then there really is no justification for high school athletic association rules either. If the state legislatures and AGs think high school athletes have "NIL" rights like the college athletes, then why not transfer rights too? #ncaa #transferstudents #highschoolsports https://lnkd.in/gPD2hqsg
DOJ bolsters lawsuit against NCAA transfer rule - Yahoo Sports
sports.yahoo.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Boil this down to the basics: (1) A lot of revenue is being generated by revenue generating sports in college athletics; (2) For years, schools, conferences, and the NCAA have hid behind the notion of "amateurism" to not compensate the athletes (product) generating the revenue; (3) Smart athletes and lawyers figured out that what the schools, conferences and NCAA were doing was a clear antitrust violation; (4) the athletes that are generating the revenue should receive compensation for their production. How we get there is a challenge. But, congressional involvement seems like a bad idea. Letting the free market decide seems like a much better solution than congressional interference. My $0.02. #sportsbiz #collegesports https://lnkd.in/ew2f682n
Sen. Ted Cruz says there's a 50-50 chance of Congress passing college sports legislation this year
apnews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Attorney at Kennyhertz Perry | College Sports Law Attorney | Sports Law | NIL Attorney | Business Law | Former Division I College Basketball Player
New details continue to emerge on the potential settlement of the House v NCAA case. As has been discussed, the settlement would include an annual cap on revenue sharing payments to a school’s athletes of around $20 million (20% of the average Power 4 school’s athletics revenue). Capping these payments for athletes that aren’t class members in the lawsuit has antitrust issues. To try and address this, a process is being discussed where athletes who aren’t class members (current HS athletes, for example) could annually opt in or object to the revenue sharing terms. Putting aside whether this novel approach solves the antitrust issues, it seems the new athletes would need to be organized to effectively opt into or object to the settlement’s rev sharing terms in an annual basis. Otherwise, this process seems like a disaster waiting to happen. The approach seems designed to avoid athletes having to collectively bargain the revenue sharing terms. But that issue (which includes employment of college athletes) will continue to be litigated in federal court and won’t be solved by this settlement. #ncaa #collegeathletes #collegeathletics #sportslaw #LinkedInSports https://lnkd.in/gpb8JQnV
What a possible multibillion-dollar NCAA antitrust settlement means for college sports
espn.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
👨⚖️ Wow! This seems kind of personal, or maybe not! But the fact remains that courtrooms are playing an important role in reshaping the sports industry with decisions that challenge powerful interests. ⚖ From dismissing a $4.7 billion NFL case to blocking UFC and NCAA settlements, judges are wielding significant influence over league operations, antitrust disputes, and athlete rights. Unlike commissioners, judges don't cater to specific stakeholders, making their decisions unpredictable yet pivotal in transforming how sports are governed and consumed. This trend of courtrooms becoming arenas for sports governance is intensifying! As the saying goes, 'That government is best which governs least,' but judges are playing a surprisingly significant role in regulating sports governance today! #SportsLaw #SportsBusiness #JudicialImpact #AthleteRights #SportsGovernance #CourtroomDecisions #AntitrustLaw #SportsIndustry #LawAndSports #ChangingTheGame #LegalTrends #SportsLitigation
Judges, Not Commissioners, Are Remaking Sports This Summer
https://www.sportico.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Settlement talks in a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA are progressing positively, according to lead attorney Steve Berman, as a crucial deadline approaches next week for the NCAA and major conferences to finalize an agreement that could reshape the landscape of college sports, costing billions in damages and introducing a pioneering revenue-sharing system for student-athletes... #antitrust #athletes #sports #competitionlaw #revenuesharing #studentathletes #collegesports
Proposed NCAA Antitrust Settlement in the Works, Says Attorney
https://www.pymnts.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
| Sports Attorney & Sports Business Consultant | Adjunct Sports Law Professor | CEO & Founder of 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠®
I am a big Oxford comma gal, but even I have to admit it can be misused. And it seems like this comma confusion has made it into the world of sports. In Judge Corker's order granting a preliminary injunction in Tennessee v. NCAA, an Oxford comma seems to suggest that no NCAA bylaws apply during this time. Can that be correct? Or did the judge mean only those related to the NIL-recruiting ban? Basically the court granted the preliminary injunction because it found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case along with the fact that the NCAA's NIL-recruiting ban is a restraint on interstate trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, amongst other findings. The language used in the order was quite clear until we read the conclusion, which takes a turn because of an errant Oxford comma. "It is hereby ORDERED that, effective immediately, Defendant NCAA; its servants, agents, and employees; and all persons in active concert or participation with the NCAA, are restrained and enjoined from enforcing the NCAA Interim NIL Policy, the NCAA Bylaws, or any other authority to the extent such authority prohibits student-athletes from negotiating compensation for NIL with any third-party entity, including but not limited to boosters or a collective of boosters, until a full and final decision on the merits in the instant action." This seems to suggest that the NCAA is restrained and enjoined from enforcing: 1. NCAA Interim NIL Policy 2. The NCAA Bylaws 3. Any other authority to the extent such authority prohibits student-athletes from negotiating compensation for NIL with any third-party entity And since this order needs to be followed uniformly by the NCAA throughout the USA, or it risks being sued, it seems to suggest no NCAA Bylaws apply at all because of the placement of that pesky comma. At the very least, states that don't have NIL legislation like Massachusetts and were following the NCAA Interim NIL Policy, no longer have NIL rules to follow. One idea we discussed in my NIL & Athlete Advocacy class at Texas A&M University School of Law to more or less solve the NCAA's monopsony problem, would be if a competing collegiate association came and bartered for the work of college athletes. Then there wouldn't be one buyer of services and the NCAA would no longer be a monopsony and if this new association were to have free trade for its athletes, then we would have a whole new world for college athletics. This is just one of the many interesting cases going on the world of college athletics. What're your thoughts on Judge Corker's order? Read an overview of the order here: https://lnkd.in/egau5j6x #nameimagelikeness #sportslaw
To view or add a comment, sign in