Ryan Whelpley’s Post

As has been discussed, there are two ways for the NCAA and conferences to make the framework being discussed for the House settlement (which includes a cap on #NIL payments from schools to athletes) comply with antitrust law. An antitrust exemption or collective bargaining with athletes. A new federal bill has been introduced that is seeking to provide the former. The Protect the Benefits And Limit Liability Act (Protect the BALL Act) introduced by two Republican representatives provides the NCAA with extremely broad liability protection. It provides immunity from ANY federal or state law (not just antitrust law) for limiting/prohibiting compensation to college athletes from ANY person or entity. This means not only could the NCAA cap the amount of NIL payments that schools/conferences can provide to athletes without legal liability (as being discussed in the House settlement), it could also completely prohibit payments to athletes from collectives and other third parties. That’s a big change from how things currently work. The bill also provides the NCAA immunity from federal/state law for any rules that restrict the eligibility of athletes. So rules limiting transfers, for example. Or any other eligibility rule the NCAA has recently been sued over. This bill has little to no chance of passing this year. But it’s an example of how the NCAA and others would like to continue governing college athletics without involving the athletes in the decision making. #ncaa #nameimagelikeness #collegeathletes #collegeathletics #sportslaw #LinkedInSports

Settlement discussions in the House v NCAA case are getting more serious. For those that need a refresher, the case has two components. 1. A backwards looking damages component, pursuant to which plaintiffs could potentially be awarded over $4billion. 2. A forward looking component that is seeking an injunction that will allow schools and conferences to directly pay #NIL compensation to athletes. As reported in this article, current settlement discussions on the forward looking piece include a revenue sharing model that schools can choose to opt into. And this would reportedly include an agreed upon revenue sharing cap of around $20M per school. While this is progress towards a new college athletics model, it wouldn’t be a long term solution. A settlement would only apply to the class members, which includes current and former college athletes. Since it doesn’t include future college athletes (and legally can’t), a freshman college athlete could come in next year and sue the NCAA for violating antitrust law based on the existence of a cap, which wouldn’t gain antitrust immunity unless it’s collectively bargained. In other words, the uncertainty surrounding the college athletics model won’t end with a settlement here. It will be interesting to watch it continue to play out. #nameimagelikeness #ncaa #collegeathletes #collegeathletics #sportslaw #LinkedInSports https://lnkd.in/gGXYdbFW

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.

Husch Blackwell is pleased to share its fourth-annual NCAA Compliance Report, which explores the legal and regulatory uncertainty the NCAA and its member schools are facing as the popularity of college sports is at an all-time high. This year's report includes insights on: Legal Challenges and NCAA Governance: Recent legal cases challenge the NCAA's authority to regulate student-athlete compensation and eligibility, signaling a shift away from traditional amateurism policies. The NCAA's governance structure is under scrutiny as courts question its ability to enforce amateurism rules. Compensation Debate: There is a growing debate over compensating college athletes, with courts and policymakers increasingly questioning the fairness of amateurism rules and exploring avenues for athlete compensation, such as expanding compensation to cover the full cost of attending college. Title IX Implications: Changes in student-athlete compensation and governance could impact Title IX compliance, requiring institutions to navigate gender equity concerns alongside financial considerations. Courts acknowledge the complexities of ensuring compliance with Title IX amidst evolving compensation models. NIL Regulations: The Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape is complex, with varying state laws and NCAA regulations prompting legal battles and the need for comprehensive federal legislation. The NCAA's enforcement of NIL rules faces challenges, with courts intervening to protect student-athlete rights. Transfer Rules: Recent changes in transfer rules have increased flexibility for student-athletes, but challenges remain in reconciling waiver requests and ensuring fairness in eligibility decisions. Legal cases have highlighted the need for clearer guidelines and consistent enforcement. Financial Pressures and Team Cuts: Institutions face budgetary strains exacerbated by potential revenue-sharing requirements and increased athlete compensation, leading to discussions around team cuts and fundraising challenges. Some institutions have announced cuts to sports programs in response to financial pressures. Legalized Gambling: The legalization of sports gambling introduces new risks for institutions and athletes, with the NCAA enforcing strict rules to preserve the integrity of collegiate sports. Leadership Initiatives: NCAA President Charlie Baker has proposed innovative solutions, including creating new subdivisions with tailored rules, to address the evolving landscape of collegiate sports governance. Comprehensive Solutions: Addressing the challenges facing collegiate sports requires comprehensive solutions that balance athlete compensation, Title IX compliance, governance reform, and the preservation of collegiate sports' unique identity. #YouthSports #NCAA #College #Sportsbiz #LinkedInSports

In a significant step for the proposed House settlement, Judge Wilken has granted preliminary approval to the revised settlement agreement that was filed on September 26. This kicks off a months long process that will culminate with a final approval hearing on April 7, 2025. For those that watched the preliminary approval hearing, it will be similar to that but it will be both in-person and virtual. Likely to accommodate athlete class members that want to participate in the hearing (whether that be to explain their objections or express their support for the settlement). Other than the final approval hearing, the other most important dates are: -Jan 31, 2025: this is the deadline for athlete class members to file objections to or opt out of the settlement. Expect more objections than have already occurred. -March 3, 2025: this is the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ deadline to respond to the athlete class member objections. While this is an important milestone in the potential settlement, there is still a long way to go before final approval. And if there is ultimately final approval, the chances of appeals being filed are high. No matter what happens, I think schools are going to start paying or funding #NIL payments to their athletes very soon. Another exciting day in the college sports law world. #ncaa #collegeathletics #sportslaw

What are the Educational, Health, or Economic benefits to the Players and their Families for his participation in any additional “NON-SCHOLARSHIP” private third-party postseason football games that pay the Universities and the Conferences for the use of their free labor to put on these highly profitable Bowl events. These additional 1-5 POSTSEASON games are also over the Players’ 12 game athletic scholarship agreement? The answer is ZERO! Our Proposal offers Major Benefits in all three Categories to the Players and their Families! The roughly 7,800 Bowl eligible Scholarship Football Players are owed Hundreds of Millions of dollars from this year’s Media contract that uses the Players’ Name, Image, and Likeness NIL without any equitable financial consideration to the Players or their Families! This lost Money could have a major impact on these Players lives, the lives of their current and future family members for generations? We do not support, or agree with the House vs NCAA Settlement or the current covert attempts to extend and expand this current Antitrust Cartel exploiting our young mostly minority FB &BB labor that the US Supreme Court and Federal District Court have recently struck down as illegal and implausible.

College #sports is in transition with outside entities challenging the NCAA’s authority to govern #collegesports - from #NIL to college athlete employment and antitrust litigation. Read more for Husch Blackwell on Sportico. #sportslaw #sportsbusiness https://lnkd.in/e97qYnHq

The Justice Department's decision to join the civil antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA's Transfer Eligibility Rule is a commendable step towards addressing the unreasonable restrictions placed on college athletes. The amended complaint rightly points out that these restrictions not only impede athletes' freedom to transfer between academic institutions but also curtail their educational opportunities. By aligning with the states and the District of Columbia, the Justice Department sends a strong message that anti-competitive practices limiting college athletes' mobility and bargaining power will not be tolerated. The alleged violations of the Sherman Act, especially concerning men’s and women’s Division I basketball and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football, underscore the broader impact on the markets for athletic services. This move signifies a commitment to prioritizing athletes' academic, personal, and professional development needs over-restrictive rules that sacrifice a year of athletic competition. https://lnkd.in/e5NHPDvC

With the six defendants (NCAA and the Power 5 conferences) all now having approved the terms of the House settlement, more details are emerging on what it contains. Many of the elements are things you see in pro league collective bargaining agreements. The annual revenue sharing cap of $22 million for all of a school’s athletes is one. The cap enforcement mechanism that has recently come to light is another. It will require athletes to report 3rd party #NIL deals to a central authority make sure the deals are “true NIL” for “fair market value,” and not “pay for play.” The obvious difference between the House settlement and pro leagues is that the House rev sharing cap, the cap enforcement mechanism, and things like new roster limits were not collectively bargained. So they remain vulnerable to antitrust attack from future college athletes. Which is why the NCAA will continue seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress. Also, the fact that the cap enforcement mechanism seeks to prevent 3rd party NIL deals from serving as “pay for play,” and as a way to evade the revenue sharing cap, seems to admit the payments from schools to athletes themselves are “pay for play” despite being classified as NIL payments. This is one reason the NCAA will continue seeking a law that says college athletes aren’t employees. The new direct payments from schools to athletes could make it harder to fight the employment issue in the courts/NLRB. There are a host of other unsettled issues that will come out of the House settlement, such as whether Title IX mandates the revenue sharing payments be equally divided among a school’s male and female athletes. I personally don’t think it does and that many schools will pay based on the market value of the use of the athletes’ NILs in tv broadcasts. But some schools will assume they have to divide payments up equally. Another issue is how this settlement affects NIL collectives. The short answer is that many of them aren’t going anywhere. But the NCAA will attempt to lessen their influence. I foresee some legal battles around this effort. Ross Dellenger does a job of covering many of the issues coming out of the settlement in the article below. It’s going to be fun helping schools and others navigate this new world and all of the legal issues it will present. #nameimagelikeness #ncaa #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #LinkedInSports https://lnkd.in/gZb2nKEt

Breaking News with settlement of the several State's Attorneys General v. NCAA case in WVA on transfer rule enforcement. A Consent Decree was entered that calls for an agreed permanent injunction against the NCAA in D1 sports only, summarized simply (I hope) as follows:  ·       Residence Rule Enjoined – No longer does an athlete need to maintain any specified period of residence at the new institution before eligibility to play vests. ·       Rule of Restitution (and Retaliation) Enjoined – No longer can the NCAA punish an athlete or institution because they relied on the injunction in this case permitting their transfer and immediate right of competition, sought a waiver, and/or challenged the NCAA’s Transfer Eligibility Rule. ·       An Extra 1 Year of Extra Eligibility – awarded to any athlete who was previously deemed in eligible to compete since 2019-20 academic year if three (3) conditions are met: (1) transfer occurred more than once (2) current student at a D1 and (3) is currently eligible to compete or their eligibility expired during this current academic year. https://lnkd.in/gEqxyuxj.