Dino L. Pollock, Esq.’s Post

💰 Industry shaping news happened over the past week, as the NCAA board of governors and the Power Five conferences have approved a historic settlement that, pending legal review and judge approval, will end “amateurism” as we know it and usher in a new era of college athletics where student athletes are paid by the schools. There are still way more questions than answers and a lot to figure out, but the one fundamental thing that has been agreed upon with this settlement: the notion of “amateurism,” the much maligned, 100+ year bedrock of the current college sports system that has long been guarded by the NCAA and other college administrators, is dead. In its place, there is a framework for $2.8 billion in backpay to former athletes for lost compensation plus a revenue sharing agreement on up to $20 million per year for future players. If approved, this new framework would be implemented by 2025. 🧠 My three takeaways from the deal: - This proposed system is a net positive, but it will only deepen the chasm between the “have’s and the “have not’s.” - The settlement doesn’t provide a real solution for NIL collectives, and they are unfortunately going to continue to operate mostly as is, for now. - Private Equity is going to fill the void for these schools in need of salary cap funding, and it likely paves the way for the privatization of athletic departments 🔥There is still much to be sorted out with this new system. I have three burning questions about the deal. Time will tell how these shake out. - Does this new world run afoul of Title IX? - Will student athletes keep going and push to be student athletes? - Will Congress finally step in and create a national standard? Interested in learning more? Check out this week's Sports Business Playbook 👇 https://lnkd.in/gESavwcc

This USA Today article about the University of Colorado's change in transfer credit policies and its impact on the Colorado Football program features words from our Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation's Josh Lens. You can read the full article below:

This is the best article I have found that breaks down the recent House settlement that has already sent ripple effects through the athletic world in the United States. It breaks down all the important information for athletes, coaches, administrators, boosters, collectives, and fans. Little opinion, just facts and potential roads ahead for college athletics. I think it is far too early to throw out "takes" on how the House settlement will positively/negatively impact collegiate athletics and higher education. I would highly discourage listening to anyone who is proclaiming this as either "the end of collegiate sports" or "the best thing ever for collegiate sports". Neither statement is likely true. It's far too early to know the impact this settlement and any future litigation will have, so for now, I will say it's not going to be "good" or "bad", just different. I do think interesting discussions can spring from this. How will the potential impact to certain sport programs affect the future of the sports at the next level in the USA (ie professional leagues and Olympic teams)? How will institutions, athletic departments, and conferences respond to the latest settlement? What future litigation could arise still? How does this impact athletics beyond the college level (both youth and professional)? https://lnkd.in/gSSNdfjR

In the House v NCAA case big schools will get 90% of the benefit but pay only 23% of the burden. This is the starkest evidence yet that the NCAA represents a constituency which has virtually no common interests. Former Power 4 conference (P4) athletes will receive 90% of the damages in the proposed settlement of the House v NCAA case. However, P4 schools will only pay 40% of those damages which are to be paid out directly by member schools. Schools from the remaining 27 D1 conferences will pay 60%. The math breaks down like this - $2.8B in total damages NCAA pays approximately 40% or $1.15B Member schools pay approximately 60% or $1.65B Of the member school allocation P4 schools pay 40% or $660M & schools from the remaining 27 conferences pay 60% or $990M despite the fact that 90% of damages paid out will go to former P4 athletes. What does this settlement really solve going forward? There's no antitrust protection to limit future damages or to provide NCAA with meaningful regulatory authority. In fact, the settlement likely makes the NCAA's antitrust problem even worse (if that's possible) because it seeks to impose salary caps on future athletes without the benefit/protection of collective bargaining. The P4 schools and the other 27 conferences have almost nothing in common yet they are nominally governed by a single entity with no meaningful authority or public credibility. A split is coming. https://lnkd.in/gzXu6ni3

In my NCAA Policies and Procedures class yesterday, we were discussing the transition that has occurred over the past decade with how schools respond to NCAA infractions allegations. In the past, the common wisdom was to cooperate fully, conduct your own internal investigation, and even self-impose stiff penalties you think would be just enough to satisfy the enforcement staff and/or Committee on Infractions. That still happens in many lower stakes cases; however, in high stakes cases that is simply no longer true. You could see a shift occurring in 2017 with the University of Oregon, where the school self-reported violations and self-imposed penalties, but the NCAA came over the top with more severe charges and penalties. Oregon accepted most of the underlying factual conclusions but defended its coaches and programs against the more severe charges and penalties. The choice to fight back was eye opening at the time, and in some ways set the stage for what was to come. Then there is Kansas, which reportedly spent roughly $10M in legal fee to successfully defend its basketball program and Coach Bill Self against greater sanctions stemming from the Adidas recruiting scandal which led to federal criminal convictions for some of its participants. And now, as the NCAA has the University of Tennessee in its crosshairs related to a deal between quarterback Nico Iamaleava and collective Spyre Sports Group, the UT president is coming out hot in defense of its school. She sent a scathing letter to NCAA president Charlie Baker and is vowing to be "resolute in protecting the rights of our student-athletes and in upholding the integrity of our institution." There are a number of reasons one could point to for this change in response strategy: the weakening of the NCAA relative to its high profile member schools, its challenges and inconsistencies as an enforcement body, the financial stakes for the schools and coaches which make paying large amounts of legal fees viable, and the changing landscape of the rules where there is genuine confusion and lack of clarity which hardly seem like the time to come down on hard on schools trying to navigate the space in good faith. Whatever the reason, the transition is happening, and the NCAA needs to reestablish its credibility fast before it will no longer be in a position to enforce its own rules. Tennessee article: https://lnkd.in/gXMrU9mD Oregon article: https://lnkd.in/gedHrp5N Kansas article: https://lnkd.in/gQRcw478 #sportslaw #NCAA #NIL

Here's something that will shake up your Monday morning: "Will Congress Save College Sports From Paying Athletes?" This article delves into a potentially game-changing case. In February, a National Labor Relations Board judge will conclude a hearing process. The outcome? It might set a precedent for whether student-athletes should be classified as employees, and whether certain team rules violate federal regulations. \n\nThere's no denying that this could tip the balance of college sports. \n\nBut here's where I throw my two cents in: \n\nI agree with the direction of this potential ruling. Let's not forget, student-athletes put in an enormous amount of work, both on and off the field. They dedicate their time, energy, and skills, often sacrificing their academics and personal lives. \n\nShouldn't they be rewarded for that? \n\nI believe it's time to recognize their contributions beyond scholarships. And if that means classifying them as employees, so be it. \n\nThe world of athletics is changing, and it's about time the rules did too. \n\nWhat are your thoughts? Do you think this will change the game for student-athletes? \n\nCheck out the article here: https://lnkd.in/gvm2UybP Check this out: https://lnkd.in/gvm2UybP

Not sure how to interpret the new GHSA NIL rules? Check out this article from me and Kathryn Ams!

I have always been against storming the court and field in college sports. The reason is that only losers do it. If they were winners, there would be no reason to celebrate a once-in-a-lifetime victory. However, it will continue until someone gives the students a reason not to do it. The SEC imposes fines that the storming university pays to the opposing university. But this is not stopping the students. The reason it is not working is that the offending ones never feel the pain. So, this is my solution to cause pain to the offenders. 1) If the fans storm the court or field, then the game is declared a home team forfeit. 2) The next home game against the visiting team is rescheduled to the visiting team's location. The home team does not get to host a game against the visiting team the following year. 3) Since the offenders are usually students, all student tickets for the rest of the season are canceled, and the student section must be vacant. I do not believe any of this will happen because the storming university likes it to happen. But if they want it to stop, make the pain on the students unbearable. https://lnkd.in/ecBTE4aV

Today, Washington, D.C. stood as the epicenter of #collegiateathletics, hosting a pivotal roundtable discussion spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz. This high-profile gathering included major players such as former Alabama head coach Nick Saban, #NIL trailblazers Haley Cavinder and Hanna Cavinder, The Collective Association president Russell White, and NIL attorney Darren Heitner. Here are two major takeaways from this morning's deliberations: Dynamic Changes: There has been a great deal of change in college athletics over the last few years. Many, including some of those in attendance at today’s event, are still seeking answers and a deeper understanding of the industry's dynamics. All parties involved in shaping the future of this athletic landscape must continue to collaborate and engage in open dialogue.  Revenue Share vs. Employment: Many in attendance at today’s roundtable believe the future of college athletics involves a revenue-sharing model as opposed to employment.    Expert Coverage: Eric Prisbell and the On3 team have been providing comprehensive coverage of the latest in NIL developments. If you’re looking to stay in the loop, look no further:

In addition to his recent sit down with Charlie Baker, Chuck Todd of Meet the Press also discussed the current state of college athletics with Senators Corey Booker and Richard Blumenthal. As always, #NIL was a topic and Booker and Blumenthal discussed their draft bill that would preempt state NIL laws. But as both Senators acknowledged, the legal issues currently facing college athletics go well beyond NIL. Booker went so far as to say college athletics is “in crisis.” Which is one of the NCAA’s talking points. But college athletics as an entity is doing great. Fan interest and tv viewership are up. And the revenue being produced is at an all time high, with an additional billion per year coming into the system just from the expanded College Football Playoff. What Booker should have said is that the current model is in crisis. A model that heavily relies on the labor of FBS football players and Division I basketball players to fund the entire system (including orbitant salaries for many), but prohibits those athletes from directly sharing in the revenue they produce is no longer tenable, both legally and morally. College athletics will be fine. It’s that model that won’t survive much longer. #nameimagelikeness #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #ncaa #sportslaw https://lnkd.in/g-M22HYF