Mit Winter’s Post

"The five autonomy conferences and the NCAA agreeing to settlement terms is an important step in the continuing reform of college sports that will provide benefits to student-athletes and provide clarity in college athletics across all divisions for years to come" 😂 🙄 AND PROVIDE CLARITY: 1. Employees or not 2. Can the cap be circumevented 3. How does a newly imposed Salary Cap not violate Anti-Trust Laws 4. Will athletes opt in 5. How if at all does Title IX apply 6. Why are non-P4 programs paying 60% vs. P4 at 40% 7. Media rights valuations 8. What protections, if any, are provided for future lawsuits 9. Who was this collectively bargained with 10. Conflicts of Interests everywhere (university level, athlete level, conference levels, P4 vs. G5 vs. FCS) Anything but CLARITY!!!! #NIL #nameimagelikeness #ncaa #revenueshare #housesettlement https://lnkd.in/eW7wJUmW

As the House v. NCAA lawsuit rages on, whispers about a potential class-action settlement have only grown louder. That settlement could result in the NCAA paying out billions in damages – but they’d still need future legal protection if they decided to go that route. There are two ways the NCAA could cover themselves, legally, in the future. The first (and frankly less likely) path would be to finally receive the antitrust exemption they’ve been asking Congress for – that hasn’t been successful for years, so there’s no reason to expect Congress to change their tune now. The second way the NCAA could protect itself from further antitrust suits would be to work toward a collectively bargained college football system. This could mean a salary cap in college sports, negotiated by college athletes themselves.

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

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 this #NIL advisory, Varnum attorneys Richard Hewlett, Jessica Visser, and Lindsay Randolph explain the groundbreaking new rules proposed by NCAA President Charlie Baker that would permit Division 1 schools to pay athletes directly. Read more about the proposed framework here. https://lnkd.in/gyzXXd9g

As expected, the SEC and PAC-12 have joined the NCAA and the other Power 5 conferences in agreeing to a potential settlement of the pending class action litigation brought by current and former college athletes seeking to share in the profits generated from use of their name, image and likeness. The terms of the NIL settlement, which includes a revenue-sharing plan, must still be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who is presiding over the consolidated actions in House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Counsel for the plaintiffs has stated that the settlement will also feature a "mechanism" that he believes will make it easier for schools to rein in the marketplace for third-party NIL deals. It will be interesting to see how the NCAA attempts to implement this mechanism in a way that complies with federal antitrust laws and whether the settlement sparks any movement in Congress to advance legislation in this area. #NIL #NCAA #antitrust https://lnkd.in/eWTzwd36

NCAA President Charlie Baker made news this morning, urging state lawmakers to implement a ban on prop betting for college athletics. Per Baker, “Sports betting issues are on the rise across the country with prop bets continuing to threaten the integrity of competition and leading to student-athletes and professional athletes getting harassed. The NCAA has been working with states to deal with these threats and many are responding by banning college prop bets." Baker added, “This week we will be contacting officials across the country in states that still allow these bets and ask them to join Ohio, Vermont, Maryland and many others and remove college prop bets from all betting markets. The NCAA is drawing the line on sports betting to protect student-athletes and to protect the integrity of the game — issues across the country these last several days show there is more work to be done.” What are your thoughts on this matter? Please join the conversation and share your perspectives in the comments below! #NCAA #CollegeSports #Ethics #Integrity #StudentAthletes #SportsBetting #Legislation #CommunityDiscussion

Tamenang Choh and Grace Kirk are former Brown University basketball players. Last year they filed a lawsuit alleging that Ivy League schools violate antitrust law by not allowing athletic scholarships and other compensation for their athletic services. Their lawsuit has now become an important part of the proposed House v NCAA settlement, as today Choh and Kirk filed an opposition to preliminary approval of the House settlement. They argue that their claims challenging the Ivy League rules are being improperly released by the House settlement, because they are being released without adequately being redressed and without adequate representation. As a result, they are asking that their claims be carved out of the settlement and that their lawsuit be allowed to continue. They are expressly not challenging the part of the settlement that relates to #NIL damages claims. I expect we’ll see a similar opposition from the plaintiffs in Fontenot v NCAA and Cornelio v NCAA (which was filed this week). I also expect to see an opposition/objection at some point from individuals who are future college athletes, based on those individuals not being adequately represented in House. #ncaa #nameimagelikeness #collegeathletes #collegeathletics #sportslaw

For those who believe SCOTUS wants to take down the NCAA based on your reading of the Alston decision, here is the question presented in the petition: Less than three years ago, this Court unanimously recognized that NCAA Division I student-athletes, as laborers, have a legally cognizable interest in the education-related benefits they receive as NCAA eligible student-athletes. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). Accepting the realities of modern-day college sports that have long been overlooked in lower courts, Alston observed that the "NCAA’s Division I essentially is the relevant market for elite college football and basketball," and that "there are no ‘viable substitutes.’” Id. at 2152. Because of this market dominance, “student-athletes have nowhere else to sell their labor.” Id. at 2156 (emphasis added). A student-athlete’s eligibility to access this unparalleled market is therefore highly valuable. The question presented is: Do elite student-athletes preparing for professional athletic careers have a business or property interest in their NCAA eligibility? SCOTUS said don't care to hear it. #ncaa

Johnson v. NCAA: Third Circuit Concludes College Athletes are Not Precluded from Bringing FLSA Claims The dispute at issue began in 2019 when college athletes at several National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) Division I (“D1”) member institutions filed a complaint asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various state wage laws seeking relief in the form of unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to federal minimum wage compensation for the time they spent representing their schools. The NCAA and member schools moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the college athletes—as “amateurs”—are not, and historically have never been, considered employees of their respective schools or the NCAA. The District Court determined that the athletes had sufficiently pleaded facts that, under a multifactor balancing test, might allow them to be classified as employees under the FLSA and denied the motion to dismiss. The NCAA and member schools appealed. The issue raised by the interlocutory appeal is not whether the athletes before the Third Circuit are actually owed the protections of the FLSA but rather, whether college athletes, by nature of their so-called amateur status, are precluded from ever bringing an FLSA claim. The Third Circuit answered this question “no”. To read more, go to https://lnkd.in/gg6DAbrm #SportsLaw #FLSA #EmploymentLaw #CollegeAthletes #DennieSportsLaw