Ninth Circuit Rejects NCAA’s Appeal in Grant House’s Class-Action NIL Case

by Riley Overend 52

January 22nd, 2024 College, News

The NCAA’s desperate appeal against class certification in former Arizona State swimmer Grant House‘s lawsuit for name, image, and likeness (NIL) backpay was rejected by the Ninth Circuit last Thursday, a decision that the NCAA warned would be the “death knell” with more than $4 billion at stake.

It’s another legal victory for House, who was granted class-action status in November on behalf of nearly 15,000 Power Five athletes from 2016 to 2021. Not only did U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken set the stage for NIL backpay, but she also determined that college athletes’ NIL in broadcasts have value that is at least 10% of the Power Five conferences’ lucrative television contracts.

When NCAA president Charlie Baker was asked last week by a Congressional subcommittee about House v. NCAA, he foreshadowed that any payments would be “applied probably across most of college sports” as opposed to being absorbed by the NCAA as the organization did after its previous antitrust losses. The Power Five conferences (and by extension their member schools) are also defendants in House’s lawsuit along with the NCAA.

House’s attorneys questioned in their own brief why the NCAA is claiming it would struggle to pay damages if dealt another loss with a jury trial looming in 2025.

“More than $7 billion in annual revenue attributed to P5 public schools alone ought to be enough to cover defendants’ litigation costs,” the plaintiffs wrote, noting that coaches’ multi-million dollar contracts are proof that there is money to spare in college sports.

House first filed the lawsuit back in 2020, more than a year before the NCAA lifted its restrictions on college athletes’ ability to profit off their publicity rights.

House v. NCAA isn’t the only threat that Baker is facing right now in his new role as NCAA president. Last week in front of Congress, he warned that if the NCAA loses the Johnson case — seeking minimum wage for college athletes — two-third of athletic teams could be eliminated (though the plaintiffs dispute that point). The National Labor Relations Board is also weighing whether to deem college athletes employees, which Baker is looking to get ahead of by asking Congress for antitrust exemptions.

In This Story

52
Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of

52 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BoomBoom
10 months ago

I guess a potentially free education, a major stepping stone in life, is no good. Many non-athlete students would kill to get what athletes get. This is going to cause universities to run into title 9 and other legal conflicts. If everyone gets paid the same, a stud football player generating most of the revenue can sue the university for unfair compensation.

The NCAA should have been taking their excess profits and putting it back into the schools who lack resources like trainers, psychologists, and facilities. We have an entitled generation of athletes that think playing a sport for free schooling is not enough, when people are getting paid less than what those scholarships are worth to fight for our… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by BoomBoom
James
Reply to  BoomBoom
10 months ago

Considering the number of hours many athletes put into their sport, the supposed “value of the education” is pretty minimal. And it’s not like those scholarships are full ride, typically it’s a partial scholarship that might be worth something like $10,000 a year. These athletes are often putting in 20-30 hours/week in the pool/weight room/etc. If anything, their academic life most likely suffers, actually putting them at a slight disadvantage to their non-sporting peers.

swimapologist
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Is the “value of the education” more or less than their “value to the university”?

That question is 50% snarky, 50% realistic.

As swimmers we, collectively, can’t overvalue ourselves if we want to survive – especially when we’re generally as a group not willing to give back in a way that would actually stimulate an economy around the sport. So are the 65 swimmers on your Power 5 swim team worth more or less than $5 million to the university and its athletics program per year? Based on the numbers I’ve seen, less (as an opportunity cost for just ‘admitting other academically-qualified students’), unless your program is consistently putting out Olympians that the school can put in all of… Read more »

I float
Reply to  James
10 months ago

And I am sure I will be massively downvoted with this comment:

If you prioritize being a swimmer more than being a “student athlete” (student comes first) I would politely suggest you might have a slightly off priority. Ultimately, most of the swimmers don’t go to college to become professional or Olympic swimmers. Most of them will graduate, get a job (or go to graduate school) and move on with their careers outside the pool.

With that in mind, may I go through the reality? Athletes get priority in school admissions, like it or not, that’s the reality. Supreme Court recently banned affirmative action, and the same group that fought AA is fighting legacy. But, shall we not beat… Read more »

0_0
10 months ago

FAFO If this happens and student-athletes become employees. It’s going to be a real eye-opener when the college athlete’s supporting this realize that they can now be fired w/o cause.

Svird
Reply to  0_0
10 months ago

This is about making money from your own likeness, these students are in no way being paid by the University and so are still not employees.

Also even if they were employees, it’s very weird to say that these students will find themselves being fired. Student athletes already work very hard and are committed to strict training schedules.

I hate the amount of sour grapes made about student athletes asking for breadcrumbs (ie: the ability to appear in a commercial or something) while these universities rake in billions (not from swimming, but college sports generally).

I float
Reply to  Svird
10 months ago

Unless I am mistaken and please correct me if I am wrong, the NIL issue is settled and was brought by Ed O’Bannon of UCLA, the championship team in 1990s.

This lawsuit by House is to share revenue received by schools and NCAA.

I am not sure any of us would be “sour grapes” if swimming is as football and basketball, because in that case, swimmers bringing the money should get a share of the profit. It’s only fair, right? The problem is that great majority of the college athletics aren’t profitable, so if the revenue generated by profitable sports has to be shared to athletes generating them, that means less money, potentially far less money to be… Read more »

Svird
Reply to  I float
10 months ago

The lawsuit is for NIL and a share of streaming revenues.

I understand what you are saying, I just always get annoyed by the “these entitled kids nowadays” rhetoric.

I know people in particular don’t like Grant House, but in truth there are some high profile collegiate swimmers who genuinely could make money for themselves via NIL and up until recently they were blocked from doing so. Likewise – this sport doesn’t generate that much revenue, but it is undeniable that the revenue it DOES generate is entirely on the backs of high profile swimmers – it’s not as beyond the pale as some people are suggesting that they be compensated for that.

Essentially – in every meaningful way –… Read more »

0_0
Reply to  Svird
10 months ago

My mistake, I confused this lawsuit for the employee one. Johnson vs NCAA if anyone is curious.

I don’t think they are entitled. I am a former D1 swimmer and currently coach in the NCAA I think these athletes deserve access to opportunities to make additional income through NIL deals. I also think the reality of this situation is that in order to earn money you must produce revenue at a profitable level. How many universities have a profitable athletic dept? How many have a profitable swim team?

Where will the money come from to pay for the a settlement to this lawsuit? According to their 2023 taxes the NCAA had about 780 million dollars in assets last year.

612
10 months ago

Flint, Michigan Mega Bowl!

ZThomas
10 months ago

Grant House seems like the kind of guy who said “we’re going to shock the world,” when he was trying to hype his team in high school.

Deez
Reply to  ZThomas
10 months ago

As a 20 year old super senior

kazoo
10 months ago

House’s lawsuit seems like nonsense to me. First, NIL is supposed to be payment for merchandise sales with a student-athlete’s name, image or likeness–or for promotional services rendered. I don’t think anybody was (or is) selling merch with the NIL of non-revenue student-athletes on it, for starters, and there were/are no services rendered.

Beyond that, there were no lucrative broadcast deals for any sports other than football and, maybe basketball. Judge Wilken seems to mistakenly believe that public universities are getting rich off of TV rights when, in fact, most of the money is used to specifically subsidize House’s sport–swimming–and other non-revenue (money losing) sports. Most major-college athletic departments lose money. She seems to have this crazy idea that… Read more »

Swim Dad
Reply to  kazoo
10 months ago

Not really. The factual basis for the lawsuit is that athletes NIL represent at least 10% of the “Value” of any broadcasting revenue.

JimSwim22
Reply to  kazoo
10 months ago

Coaches are not private employees. The$ for their salary comes from gifts but they aren’t hired by outside alumni groups

Pureswimming
10 months ago

It makes me sad that athletes (especially non revenue athletes) cannot see the domino effect these decisions and situations will have. Money does not grow on trees and this will be a catalyst to start paying athletes in college beyond scholarships, the NCAA will cease to exist which means school will keep football, basketball and maybe a SMALL handful of others. Olympic sports will no longer be a part of varsity sports they will become club and no longer funded by universities. I truly believe this will happen in the next five years. I know this sounds doom and gloom but it is what it is. Those who were previously on full scholarships will now be out 50-90k of education… Read more »

Spieker Pool Lap Swimmer
Reply to  Pureswimming
10 months ago

Your nightmare scenario is already happening even without this lawsuit. Athletic departments are becoming all about football for football’s sake (and similarly but to a much lesser extent with basketball) rather than sponsoring a host of sports. The writing has been on the wall for years and Grant House didn’t have anything to do with it.

kazoo
Reply to  Spieker Pool Lap Swimmer
10 months ago

You’re wrong. Most major colleges continue to sponsor anywhere from 15 to 20 sports. That has not changed.

House to end it all
Reply to  Spieker Pool Lap Swimmer
10 months ago

House is arguing to be paid what? A few thousand? Now imagine that few thousand spread across MILLIONS of former and current student athletes, which will happen and what he is arguing for.

Grant may have not started it, but he sure as hell is trying to end the sport of swimming and diving.

How much is House making now that he is able to? Has anyone picked him up as a sponsor? No? Exactly.

Swim Dad
Reply to  House to end it all
10 months ago

Unfortunately I think the lawsuit is seeking to claw back 10% of TV revenue for the covered period of 5 years. Additionally, the court ruling gave support to the basis of the argument. The distribution of $ could be an even number across all student athletes or get very complicated with eyeballs/per team.

YGBSM
Reply to  Pureswimming
10 months ago

Or …. the athletes (including swimmers) will get paid, as employees, but the scholarship money drops by the same amount. Essentially a shell game of funds. No more is going to the athletes – just the matrix changes to cash payments, but now they gotta use that money to pay for school.

Trust me, the “pie isn’t going to grow bigger” financially for student-athletes. Schools will just reduce other resources. Football and hoops? Of course not. They will get both – scholarships AND pay.

The non-revenues will simply now get pay. With reduced scholarships.

Swim Dad
Reply to  Pureswimming
10 months ago

Well said, but I keep hoping University Presidents will step up and preserve status quo. Unfortunately I think only the big 10 and SEC will field Olympic sports plus a few well endowed schools including Ivy league within 5 years ACC and Big 12 will have 1/3 the revenue per team and will try to keep up in football and basketball.

Lifeguard
Reply to  Swim Dad
10 months ago

Some big ten schools like Michigan State, UMD dropped swimming.

Nakamoto
10 months ago

House is breaking the NCAA all by himself. what a BOSS!!! Pay student athletes what they are owed.

I float
Reply to  Nakamoto
10 months ago

Good point…. How do you monetize swimming, a sport that is extremely costly to maintain, but outside of Phelps and Lochte era, has yet to generate self sustaining revenue?

Think of another way: if each sport is now being asked to be self sustaining, football and basketball will be able keep going and pay their athletes. For money losing sports like swimming, should swimmers now be paying the schools for the privilege to train and flourish?

Let’s face it, we are here because we are swimmers. But outside swimming community, most of these college swimmers don’t have any name recognition beyond their own schools.

Diehard
Reply to  Nakamoto
10 months ago

Or they can get a job….no one is twisting their arm! How much revenue did Grant bring into ASU over his 7 years? $0

Bing chilling
10 months ago

HOKAGE House gets it done again, I don’t know how he does it #goat

About Riley Overend

Riley is an associate editor interested in the stories taking place outside of the pool just as much as the drama between the lane lines. A 2019 graduate of Boston College, he arrived at SwimSwam in April of 2022 after three years as a sports reporter and sports editor at newspapers …

Read More »