|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1953
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Not so fast - House case settlement issues
2
Jan 4, 2025, 10:31 AM
|
|
The final settlement is tentatively scheduled for April. The plaintiff's attorney is saying that if the NCAA's language about NIL remains as is, it's likely that the plaintiffs will reject the settlement and go to trial.
If that happens, it is bad news for athletes that are planning on revenue sharing starting with the fall semester in 2025. Its also bad news for schools that are counting on revenue sharing as a way to at least partially level the NIL playing field.
A trial could get VERY bad news for the NCAA and it's member institutions. The settlement offer is 2.75 billion $$$. A loss at trial could be much more. That would really sting Clemson. The smart move for the NCAA would be to drop the clause about letting them interfere in NIL and sign off on the rest of the settlement. That's the probable best outcome for Clemson as well.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/judge-preliminarily-approves-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2570]
TigerPulse: 99%
32
|
Re: Not so fast - House case settlement issues
2
Jan 4, 2025, 10:54 AM
|
|
The proposed settlement last fall was DOA IMO. Still feel the same now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14755]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Umm... you may want to look at some more current articles
1
Jan 4, 2025, 11:21 AM
|
|
Kessler (House attorney) has already agreed to the terms of settlement as he was one of the party's writing it - thus the reason Judge Wilken never set a trial date.
In December 2024 Kessler said the following:
“Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect. If it was perfect, it wouldn't be a settlement. And the difference in compromising in a settlement is that you've achieved something today for the athletes today that's going to improve their lives every day.”
Source: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/12/10/iaf-house-settlement
Furthermore here is a pretty good layout of the NIL stuff in the House Settlement (which Kessler, the NCAA agreed to and Judge Wilken has given preliminary approval) as of 26 December 24:
https://businessofcollegesports.com/name-image-likeness/house-settlement-qa-approved-by-the-court/
Now... there are some additional comments/concerns that Judge Wilken is entertaining from various outside groups in early 2025 thus the "preliminary approval" and not final approval. IF Judge Wilken goes forward with the current House Settlement then it will be the de facto law of the land for 2025 so long as another higher court does not put a "stay" on it.
Time will tell what comes out of all this but the trend is clear - eventually college athletes are going to be paid directly from the schools with total salary caps AND NIL will revert to true advertising/business opportunities as it was originally intended. It may take 5 or more years to go through additional court challenges and eventually require Federal legislation but it will eventually happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
One caveat
1
Jan 4, 2025, 11:25 AM
|
|
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks what NIL was "intended" to be. If there was a anything illegal about it, it would have already been stopped by the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44959]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11771
Joined: 2015
|
Re: One caveat
Jan 4, 2025, 11:40 AM
|
|
Illegal? No it’s not illegal as far as law, but if the folks want good football there will eventually have to be some guardrails in place. If not Michigan, Notre Dame or Oregon can purchase a team to win it every year. Is there not an equitable way to pay players and maintain some sort of balance between schools that have huge alumni numbers vs a smaller school?
That is what I am getting at. Nothing to do with players getting paid but the ways they are able to be paid are different at every school. Should the team with the bigger alumni base always have an advantage? I’m not talking capitalism or a level playing game in life but a more level playing field for sport. If that cannot be fixed then it’s done for a majority of schools trying to compete at the highest level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14755]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
No one is arguing about the current state of NIL being legal or illegal...
1
Jan 4, 2025, 12:14 PM
[ in reply to One caveat ] |
|
Your OP was about the House Settlement where there is a pending Federal court approved settlement where NIL WILL BE defined and restricted to specific activities for which the NCAA has stated very clearly was the original intent of NIL. The House Settlement does not place a limit on NIL activities BUT those NIL activities must meet certain criteria with a process for adjudication/dispute settlement should that arise. NIL "pay for play" will most definitely violate the House Settlement criteria....
Your welcome to your "House Settlement won't stand opinion" - time will tell. However, it is my belief that the writing is on the wall that college athletes will be paid directly by the schools AND as part of that process rules will be applied to NIL that ensure NIL deals must meet certain legal definitions/requirements. How and when we get to that end state - no one knows for certain but it will happen in my opinion.
As I have stated before - to believe that NIL is some kind of legally protected free market unicorn that can never be corralled into a legal definition of acceptable business standards that can withstand judicial scrutiny is pure fantasy. If it were - there would be NIL collectives all over the NFL being used to get around the NFL's salary caps....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Settlements don't establish precedent or case law.
Jan 4, 2025, 11:37 AM
[ in reply to Umm... you may want to look at some more current articles ] |
|
...unless my attire get friends are mistaken.
The puzzling thing about this settlement is that it is about to compensating former athletes, but sets a condition pn 3rd party compensation for future athletes.
This settlement also conflicts with the injunction in the Tennessee vs. NCAA case.
"However, on February 23, 2024, after more briefing was presented, the court granted a preliminary injunction that enjoined the NCAA from enforcing its Interim NIL Policy, its Bylaws, and any other restrictions that prohibit student-athletes from negotiating NIL compensation."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/let-the-bidding-begin-tennessee-v-ncaa-and-the-future-of-nil-recruitment-bargaining/%23:~:text%3DHowever%252C%2520on%2520February%252023%252C%25202024,athletes%2520from%2520negotiating%2520NIL%2520compensation.&ved=2ahUKEwikuIriv9yKAxUpMtAFHfpCO88QFnoECBEQBQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1DkYe0u5YtB_gAWZAu98vw
It's pretty obvious that this isn't settled by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [11016]
TigerPulse: 61%
45
Posts: 14057
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Not so fast - House case settlement issues
Jan 4, 2025, 12:37 PM
|
|
This will continue to be very, very interesting. Remember the days when car companies offered 0% interest or a rebate (maybe $2000)? Doing the math would show it was a break even situation so just take your choice. Schools do not have millions of dollars just sitting around and the interesting thing will be how much the NCAA tv payouts are reduced after they have to fork out the settlement money. The finance departments at the NCAA and all the schools have their work cut out for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1953
|
|
|
50
