NCAA Legal thread for 2024

[red_n_black_attack]

I like the emphasis on no pay-4-play NIL deals. ALthough, if we go to employee status for athletes...it's all out the window.

[bearcatbret]

I like the emphasis on no pay-4-play NIL deals. ALthough, if we go to employee status for athletes...it's all out the window.

That is going to upset a whole lot of tenured professors when the "student-athletes" are making more than they do. I wonder if they are employees, will they be required to sign a contract that includes a buy-out clause much like for coaches?

[Lobot]

That is going to upset a whole lot of tenured professors when the "student-athletes" are making more than they do. I wonder if they are employees, will they be required to sign a contract that includes a buy-out clause much like for coaches?

I think the contract thing is most definitely in play, complete with behavior clauses and incentives etc. Fortunately for players, the FTC ruled non complete clauses illegal today.

[bearcatbret]

Revenue sharing with the "student-athlete". I wonder if this only applies only to the SEC and B1G and if it only applies to football and basketball players. The Olympic sports lose money so there is not revenue for those sports. The Group of 5 lose money so how can they share revenue? One article references the Power 5. SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics (msn.com)

[Lobot]

I have a new one to tack on to this thread.

4 US Senators have signed a letter asking Homeland Security to clear up the mess between student visas and work requirements for foreign athletes. Making changes here would allow foreiregn athletes to earn NIL. I think this was prompted by Zach Edey's inability to earn NIL because he's Canadian. Victor Lakhin would have also benefitted if this were already in effect.

Here's the text , I left off the signatures but it's Senators Blumenthal, Murphy, Capito and Ricketts.



Dear Secretary Mayorkas,

We write to request information about the status of the Department of Homeland
Security’s (DHS) commitments to provide legal clarity for international students participating in
collegiate athletics.

Since July 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has maintained a
policy to allow college athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL), bringing the
NCAA into line with laws passed by dozens of states and federal court rulings. These changes
recognized that past policies limiting students’ economic rights were unnecessary and unfair —
hindering students from benefiting from their hard work.

While many students have rightfully benefitted from these new opportunities,
international college athletes and college athletic programs face a credible risk that even the most
basic NIL deal could violate the work restrictions of the F-1 visa. DHS could clarify that the F-1
visa program does not prevent a student from engaging in NIL related activities, securing college
athletes’ economic opportunities and easing concerns that students and schools might run afoul
of the law. Unfortunately, the tens of thousands of international students competing in NCAA
competitions have been deprived of these economic opportunities because of a lack of guidance
on, or changes to, the conditions of their student visas by DHS.

Last year, in Senate oversight hearings and in response to a previous letter requesting
guidance and rulemaking, you committed to moving as quickly as you can on providing these
important protections for foreign college athletes. Unfortunately, despite that commitment to
move quickly, DHS still has not updated its rules a year later. As a result, international students
have gone another year without legal protections or clarity, leading star athletes to turn down
opportunities, go through extreme hoops to stay in good standing with their visas, or consider
leaving school.

We request a written update on what steps DHS has taken to follow through on your
commitment to protect those international college athletes and schools that seek to benefit from
the blood, sweat, and tears they put into their sport.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

[Lobot]

They might about to settle the House case. I haven't digested all this yet but here you go. A 2.7 Billion settlement seems like a lot even for the NCAA.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...t-case-vs-ncaa

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-...124301018.html

[Lobot]

NCAA looks like they are about to settle the House case for multi-billions. The Big East is big mad because they don't think they got treated farily as a non power conference in football. A little ironic since they're considered one in basketball and they opted to keep the conference name and from when it was a power conference in football. I'm thinking had they not hoovered up the name for brand recoginition reasons, they'd be considered a separate business entity from the Big East that had BCS football when UC was in it. Maybe they'd be paying less in that case.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaas-settl...194238228.html

[GoBearcats31]

@PeteThamel
Sources: The Big 12 presidents and chancellors have unanimously voted to settle the looming anti-trust cases, including House v NCAA. They have bee[n] briefed in recent days on the settlement’s 13-page term sheet. The Big 12 is the first of six named parties to vote this week.

[Lobot]

House has been settled for 2.8B.

Update:The judge has to approve the settlement but that's all that left here. We're paying players directly which probably means the the NIL Collectives will go away.

[Lobot]

House settlement articles:

($) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/551...tlement-votes/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...s/73826968007/

https://www.si.com/college/how-we-go...college-sports

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-settle...125519681.html

[bearcatbret]

As I understand this, it is payment of revenue sharing. The only programs that may make money at nearly all schools are football and basketball. Will these payments exclude all other sports? If so, will the NIL still be used for those nonrevenue sports?

[Lobot]

As I understand this, it is payment of revenue sharing. The only programs that may make money at nearly all schools are football and basketball. Will these payments exclude all other sports? If so, will the NIL still be used for those nonrevenue sports?

Don't know.

What I suspect from the House settlement is that NIL collectives will be dragged in house to Athletic departments most likely. That's the only way to deal with Title IX and keep things reasonably equitable between revenue and non revenue sports if in fact that's what you want to do. NIL collectives are not beholden to Title IX, I don't think. I could be wrong.

Regardless or whether I"m right or wrong, Cincy Reigns, Altius folks, etc. seem to be finding good avenues for non revenue sport athletes for NIL contracts

[red_n_black_attack]

Don't know.

What I suspect from the House settlement is that NIL collectives will be dragged in house to Athletic departments most likely. That's the only way to deal with Title IX and keep things reasonably equitable between revenue and non revenue sports if in fact that's what you want to do. NIL collectives are not beholden to Title IX, I don't think. I could be wrong.

Regardless or whether I"m right or wrong, Cincy Reigns, Altius folks, etc. seem to be finding good avenues for non revenue sport athletes for NIL contracts

I doubt NIL and revenue sharing will be subject to Title IX. I mean some guys get paid more than other guys because they have more NIL value; they simply bring more return to the investors using their NIL. I think the thing in Title IX that isn't going to be an issue is that all athletes have the right and opportunity to market their NIL value, which will be different athlete to athlete.

[Lobot]

I doubt NIL and revenue sharing will be subject to Title IX. I mean some guys get paid more than other guys because they have more NIL value; they simply bring more return to the investors using their NIL. I think the thing in Title IX that isn't going to be an issue is that all athletes have the right and opportunity to market their NIL value, which will be different athlete to athlete.

That may be the case.

I've heard and read a number of articles on putting in place an NIL "salary cap" for schools (not directly on players) . All parties need to figure that out and it has to wait until athletes eventually become employees and have representation to negotiate it.

This thread is going to get really long eventually because there are so many parties with angles to iron out and I'm sure there will be more lawsuits filed along the way. This could have all been in the works for years and it still wouldn't be a smooth transition.

[Lobot]

The NCAA has a new angle today which might kill off a couple of court cases for the NCAA. The D1 NCAA Rules committee recommended that the injuction put in place from Dave Yost's case regarding multi-time transfers will remain in place.

Players will be allowed to transfer freely to another school provided they are in good academic standing at the current school and making progress toward their degree when enrolling in a new school.

The full NCAA membership will vote on this on 4/22

This has been been permanaently enjoined. Free transfers for everybody