close
close

Yiamastaverna

Trusted News & Timely Insights

    • The settlement with the NCAA revenue sharing house was approved by the judge
    New Jersey

    The settlement with the NCAA revenue sharing house was approved by the judge

    Seren Anwen Posted on

    play

    A federal judge on Monday granted preliminary approval to a slightly revised version of a multibillion-dollar settlement in three athlete compensation antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences.

    The decision moves the NCAA and conferences closer to funding a $2.8 billion damages pool for current and former athletes over 10 years and sets the stage for a sea change in college sports: Division schools I will be allowed to begin paying athletes directly for use of their name, image and likeness, subject to a cap per school that would increase over time.

    However, the settlement process is ongoing and may be far from over.

    The process of officially notifying current and former athletes of the conditions and claims process is scheduled to begin on October 18th. Those who would be covered by the agreement have until January 31, 2025 to object or opt out. And a final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025.

    However, further legal remedies could arise. A former college football player and his attorney have reached a financial settlement in an earlier college sports compensation case by pursuing the matter in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That bid ultimately failed, but it ultimately delayed the final resolution by about two years.

    And the path to this point hasn’t been entirely smooth in these cases.

    Lawyers representing three different groups of athletes appealed the preliminary approval. Then, during a Sept. 5 hearing, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said she would not approve the original version of the proposed settlement — for a variety of reasons that differed from those expressed in the objections.

    On September 26, the lawyers who drafted the settlement proposal submitted an amended version of the agreement. The updated version addressed Wilken’s concerns about how the original version defined the types of companies and individuals whose current NIL agreements with athletes would be subject to special scrutiny under a new regulatory structure that the NCAA and conferences would adopt in exchange for their consent demand for the industry-changing deal.

    But even that version of the agreement was met with objections from another, different group of athletes last week. This fourth group is represented by attorneys led by Michael Hausfeld, who also led the representation of former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon in a landmark antitrust victory over the NCAA.

    Wilken’s order Monday did not provide specific comment on her reasons for granting the preliminary approval, but rather stated in fairly broad general language that upon final approval, she “will likely be in a position to approve the settlement as fair, reasonable and appropriate.” …subject to further consideration.” Hearing.

    “A major step forward for NCAA athletes,” Steve Berman, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email to USA TODAY Sports.

    NCAA President Charlie Baker said in a statement: “We are thrilled with Judge Wilken’s decision to grant preliminary approval to the groundbreaking settlement that will help bring stability and sustainability to the sport of collegiate athletics while supporting student-athletes to offer greater benefits in the coming years. Today’s progress is.” “A significant step in writing the next chapter for the future of college sports. We look forward to working with all of Division I, and particularly student-athlete leadership groups, to pave the path forward and drive historic change.”

    Under the settlement agreement, schools could begin paying their athletes starting the first school year after final approval and resolution of any appeals. Theoretically, payments to athletes could begin in the 2025/26 school year. And Berman has said current and former athletes could start receiving checks from the compensation pool starting in the fall of 2025, if not sooner.

    Plaintiffs’ lawyers said nearly 400,000 athletes are entitled to damages dating back to 2016, with football and basketball players set to receive the highest amounts. But plaintiffs’ attorneys said there is a case in which an athlete in sports other than football, men’s basketball or women’s basketball is entitled to a claim of more than $1.85 million.

    All of this would be part of a broader overhaul of college sports that would occur as part of the settlement.

    Among other things:

    ▶NCAA officials would seek to effect rule changes that would remove long-standing scholarship restrictions for individual sports and replace them with new restrictions on roster size. For example, in the first year of study after the settlement is finally approved, the football roster cap would be 105.

    ▶While athletes would still have the ability to enter into NIL agreements with entities other than their schools, the settlement would allow the NCAA to adopt rules designed to give the association greater enforcement oversight of these agreements.

    The details of those rules were the primary source of concerns Wilken raised during the Sept. 5 hearing.

    As it currently stands, athletes would have to report payments of more than $600 to an established clearinghouse. And their deals would be subject to review, with the aim of preventing pay-for-play and deals that pay amounts above market value.

    This potentially raises questions about the future impact of collectives, school-specific donor groups dedicated to pooling resources dedicated to NIL payments. Currently, these payments are often based – at best – only loosely on the value of an athlete’s NIL rights or their promotional work.

    As part of the settlement, athletes who have questions about the legality of their agreements would be able to seek an advisory opinion from an enforcement group. If the enforcement group wanted to sanction an athlete because of an agreement, the athlete would have the option to refer the matter to an arbitrator.

    (This story has been updated to add new information.)

    Tagged:

    LEAVE A RESPONSE

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Seren Anwen
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like

    ads