Mit Winter’s Post

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

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

🚨 Update on House v. NCAA Settlement: Is the Proposed $208M Fair for Student-Athletes? 🚨 A federal judge recently pumped the brakes on the proposed $208 million House v. NCAA settlement, raising serious concerns about whether the deal is fair for student-athletes. The case, which centers on the NCAA’s past restrictions on athletes’ ability to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), was set to be a landmark resolution—but now faces increased scrutiny. As CNN and USA Today report, the judge is questioning the fairness of the settlement's distribution formula and whether it properly compensates all impacted athletes. This has opened a broader debate about the role of NIL and whether these financial settlements truly reflect the value that athletes bring to college sports. A big issue? Distribution and transparency. Many argue that this settlement doesn’t adequately address the economic disparity among athletes across different sports and programs. As Front Office Sports points out, the judge’s concerns are also focused on ensuring that lawyers and third parties don’t walk away with disproportionate gains. The road to NIL fairness is just as complex as many anticipated. This case could be a pivotal moment in shaping how future settlements and regulations consider athletes’ contributions and rights. 💡 Question: What changes should be made to ensure fair compensation for all student-athletes involved? #NCAA #NIL #StudentAthletes #HousevNCAA #FairCompensation #CollegeSports

❌ Judge Claudia Wilken declined to grant preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in #HousevNCAA (at least for now), after an intense 2.5 hour hearing where she pressed the parties on the terms of proposed settlement. ⚠ Following Thursday’s hearing, there are serious questions about whether the parties will be able to reach a settlement based upon the areas Wilken identified as problematic. 👩⚖️Judge Wilken expressed major concerns and encouraged parties "go back to the drawing board" and "come up with something better...something that's workable...something that makes sense and that's understandable and enforceable and fair." She was not buying what the NCAA or Plaintiffs were selling in response to the concerns she raised on a number of issues. Specifically, Wilken wants parties to address the follow issues: 1️⃣ Third-party NIL restrictions in the settlement are stricter than current NCAA guidelines 🔷 👩⚖️: "Taking things away from people generally doesn't work well." She didn't like the NCAA's response that it could prohibit everything the settlement prohibits "at any point under the current rules." She doesn't want athletes making less than they do under the current framework and enforcement. ❗NCAA Atty said that without the third-party NIL restrictions, there will likely not be a settlement 2️⃣ Unclear definition of "boosters" 🔷👩⚖️: "I think we've got problems with this and I don't have an idea of how to fix them, so I'm going to throw this back on you all to see if you can come up with something better" ❗This has been an issue for years, even though NCAA counsel insisted it was a clear and well understood term 3️⃣ Attempt to distinguish "real NIL" from inducements and "pay-for-play" disguised as NIL 🔷 Wilken does not see how the NCAA can argue that the settlement does not allow "pay-for-play" when schools will be directly paying athletes from their revenue. She said "under the settlement, you will be engaged in pay-for-play." ❗NCAA said this is could be a deal breaker if not included 4️⃣ Whether separate counsel should be appointed to represent the injunctive relief classes for negotiation purposes to avoid conflict of interest issues with the damages class 🔷Attys for the plaintiffs think the settlement is great for all athletes, calling it a "homerun" Wilken was unmoved and unwilling to entertain arguments from objectors regarding lack of collective bargaining, past discrimination against female athletes contributing to difference in rev share, etc. ⁉ In response to the Judge's saying "I think it's clear that there will be a settlement and this will get worked out," NCAA Atty's could be seen shaking his head and looking incredulous. ⁉ The parties have 3 weeks to try to work out the issues and report back, so we shall see... For a more through summary, read @MichaelMcCann's insightful article: https://lnkd.in/e7geWJ6E #LInkedInSports #NIL

NCAA Faces $2.78 Billion Antitrust Settlement – What’s Next for College Sports? A monumental settlement could be in the works for the NCAA and its member conferences, with a proposed $2.78 billion settlement of antitrust lawsuits under judicial scrutiny. Presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken expressed concerns about the structure of payments, particularly those involving booster-funded organizations. The settlement, which would compensate athletes denied the right to profit from their names, images, and likenesses (NIL), could reshape the financial landscape of college sports. One significant element of the deal is a revenue-sharing plan, which would direct approximately $21 million annually to each school for NIL-related payments. However, the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate sponsorships and pay-for-play inducements continues to be a point of contention. Wilken asked whether such a system could truly regulate the blurred lines between boosters and schools paying athletes, raising doubts about whether the NCAA’s pay-for-play prohibition will hold under the new system. If approved, this settlement could allow college athletes to finally tap into the billions generated by TV deals and school revenues as early as next season. The case will continue to evolve as both sides work on addressing the concerns raised by the judge. Are we witnessing the beginning of a new era in college sports? Follow for updates on this landmark case!

College sports leaders are in talks to settle the ongoing NIL / antitrust lawsuit, House v. NCAA. The House case was originally filed in the Northern District of California by former collegiate swimmer Grant House. Plaintiffs argue that the NCAA restricted athletes’ ability to profit from their NIL, alleging a violation of antitrust laws. A settlement could include revenue sharing with athletes and legal protection for the #NCAA. The NCAA is opposed to athletes being classified as employees. According to the article, schools will have the discretion to opt in to revenue sharing up to a certain amount with their student athletes. The exact mechanics of how this will work are still uncertain. Schools could choose to share less, but not more, than the designated amount. #NIL #collegesports #sportslaw #NCAA #collegeathletes Source: https://lnkd.in/eYQP4GyD

House v. NCAA settlement deadline is today. This is another major, ongoing antitrust lawsuit where a college athlete is suing the NCAA. This lawsuit was first filed in June 2020. So far the NCAA, the Big 12, and the ACC have agreed to the settlement terms. It still remains unsettled what the Big 10, PAC-12, and SEC will do. Here’s an article by The Athletic with the latest update: https://lnkd.in/gHVF2ZWN If the remaining Power 5 conferences don’t sign today, this case will go to trial in January 2025. Due to the court system’s history of ruling in favor of athletes not having their antitrust rights violated, it might behoove these conferences to reach a settlement. If settled, it would usher in a revenue-sharing model between conferences and athletes for the next 10 years. This may ultimately lead to the professionalism in college sports that the NCAA has fought against since the beginning of time. If not settled, the following could be the reasoning by the unsettled conferences: No guarantees about future lawsuits No guarantees on anti-trust protections No guarantees about employee status No guarantees about Title IX S/O@Jade M. Gummer As result of conceding to a settlement, the conferences may look at these non-guarantees and anticipate all of the lawsuits that are potentially still coming their way and all the money they will have to pay. Right now, the plaintiffs’ settlement is only seeking somewhere between nearly $3 billion in back-pay to athletes for the four years before the NCAA enacted NIL regulations in 2021. However, if this goes to trial and the NCAA loses in court, that multi-billion dollar price tag could multiply 3 to 7 times as much according to sources at Yahoo Sports. It will be interesting to see what happens today. #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #LinkedInSports

Several states are challenging an NCAA rule that unjustifiably restrains the ability of college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I college athletes. Clark Hill Law provides the details. #sportslaw #ncaa #collegeathletics

EU Antitrust Law: Settlement of Antitrust Law Suit: Indeed, facing a likely defeat in court and the mandatory treble damages of antitrust law, the NCAA and the major conferences decided to settle. The NCAA and the conferences agreed to pay $2.8 billion in back-pay damages to current and former athletes and create a system of revenue-sharing with athletes, with most of the money going to football players and men’s and women’s basketball players. The agreement, whichwould last ten years, is the most consequential financial agreement in the history of college sports, and the final nail in the coffin of college sports amateurism #competitionlaw #antitrustlaw https://lnkd.in/g9YWg6Fd

News broke yesterday that the NCAA is investigating Tennessee for #NIL-related rules violations, based on its collective allegedly using an NIL deal as a recruiting inducement. As part of that, the University of Tennessee’s chancellor wrote a strongly worded letter to NCAA president Charlie Baker that hinted a lawsuit was coming. Today, that lawsuit was filed. In a surprise, Virginia has joined Tennessee as a plaintiff in the case. The complaint alleges that the NCAA’s ban on using NIL agreements as recruiting inducements violates federal antitrust law. It asks that the rule be declared illegal and that a temporary restraining order (and eventual permanent injunction) be entered to prohibit the rule from being enforced. The motion for TRO that was also filed this morning by the two states asks that the TRO be entered by February 6, the day before the DI football signing period opens. This scenario is similar to the lawsuit originally filed by seven states alleging that the NCAA’s transfer rules violate antitrust law. The case resulted in a TRO/preliminary injunction that prevents the NCAA from enforcing its transfer rules. The US DOJ and four other states have now joined that lawsuit. I expect the same thing to happen here with respect to the NCAA’s ability to enforce its NIL related rules. The court will enter a TRO/preliminary injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing its rules that restrict NIL deals from being used as recruiting inducements. And additional states may join as plaintiffs. I think the NCAA/college athletics should get the picture now that its rules on athlete compensation and player movement can’t be enforced as they violate antitrust law. It should have been working on a new, legally compliant model for college athletics the day after the Supreme Court’s Alston decision. Instead, it’s wasted 2.5 years and millions of dollars trying to fight the inevitable. If college athletics wants enforceable rules, it needs a model that incudes collective bargaining with athlete representatives. I think it may be too late for the NCAA to remain a part of this new world. I’d expect new governing bodies/leagues to form to operate specific sports. #ncaa #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #antitrustlaw