The landmark settlement in the NCAA v. House antitrust case has been put on pause after a Federal Judge called into question how the deal would limit third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) payments from boosters.
Judge Claudia Wilken advised the settlement attorneys to “go back to the drawing board” while expressing concern with several parts of the deal during a hearing on Thursday.
Judge Wilken has put the case on hold, declining to grant preliminary approval.
“I’m concerned about the third-party NIL restrictions,” Wilken said. “I’m concerned (the settlement) will limit those opportunities for people moving forward.”
Among Wilken’s primary concerns was a clause that would require any money boosters provide to athletes to be for a “valid business purpose” and eliminate pay-for-play payments that have become common in NIL collectives.
Wilken asked NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru if the settlement would end up with the organization paying athletes to pay, but Kilaru said that pay-for-play will be against the rules.
“For us it’s an essential part of the deal,” Kilaru said.
It’s clear Judge Wilken was under the impression that the settlement *permits* pay-for-play thru 3rd-party NIL to athletes.
NCAA’s prohibition on pay-for-play is “not going to be there anymore right?” she asks, before Kilaru tells her – to her confusion – that it will exist. https://t.co/fc0vFd6zdJ
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) September 5, 2024
Over the last few years, since the introduction of NIL, booster collectives have provided payments to athletes that are, on paper, for NIL usage, but in reality have essentially served as player salaries. The deal is designed to take this away.
“What are we going to do with this?” Wilken asked. “I found that taking things away from people is usually not too popular.
“The schools don’t have to pay those benefits, and the schools may or may not be able to pay those benefits, but clearly, the collectives or the boosters or the third parties do have those resources and are willing to pay them, apparently.
“I think we’ve got problems with this, and I don’t have an idea of how to fix them. So I think I’m just gonna have to throw this back on you all to see if you can come up with something better.”
Both sides of the settlement agreed to confer, consider Wilken’s concerns and make a supplemental submission on Sept. 26.
Jeffrey Kessler, the lead attorney on the House side, said a trial is possible if Wilken is not satisfied and an agreement cannot be reached.
“If we’re going to solve these issues and go forward, that’s great,” Kessler said. “And if not, then we want a trial date.”
Kilaru added that after hearing what Wilken had to say, he’s not sure a deal can be made.
The NCAA released a statement on Thursday night, acknowledging the manner of questions brought forward by Wilken aren’t out of the ordinary in class action settlements:
“The settlement agreement the NCAA and autonomy conferences submitted to the court was the product of hard-fought negotiations that would bring stability and sustainability to college sports … That continues to be our goal and the NCAA and autonomy conferences will carefully consider the court’s questions, which are not uncommon in the context of class action settlements.”
If Wilken grants preliminary approval later this month, settlement parties can begin notifying class members, namely athletes eligible for damages payments and current student-athletes eligible for optional revenue-sharing. A final approval hearing would then be scheduled for early next year. If it’s approved in that final hearing, settlement terms go into effect immediately with the revenue-sharing agreement beginning in July 2025.
It’s pretty telling that the House side was willing to deprive future athletes of a pay-to-play deal in order to secure their payout. Good on Wilken for reading the fine print.
Separate the football and basketball teams from the university and make them their own revenue center. (Professional athletes) Lease the stadium and mascot to this new entity for 100 years at $1 per year. Shift all operating costs and revenues related to football and basketball to this new entity. Have the university charge back the cost of education if these athletes would like to get a college degree. (not a requirement for being on this professional team) The colleges can then take a look at non-revenue sports and make the determination, without the current serious title IX and NIL implications, if they are value added. I would hope they would be value added. Perhaps they could come up with regional… Read more »
100% agree.
I’m just not sure how we get from current mess to that.
A few not entirely well thought out thoughts.
In my mind, these universities should all be operating more like Division III.
I do not like that sports teams are often only considered successful if they are revenue generating.
Maybe scholarships are moved out of athletic department budgets and move into a more holistic applicant budget.
Colleges should be looking at sports as a way to make a better more full person, just like any club or activity.
Now there is just one more thing to take care of; get the NCAA to back down from the minimum number of varsity sports from 7 men/7 women or 6 men / 8 women to 0 and 0 so they can just do the absolute minimum to offset the football program’s 100 full scholarships with women’s scholarships to be in compliance of Title IX. Then the colleges/Athletic Directors will be happy. The Power 4 conferences will all have Football, Men’s & Women’s basketball, women’s rowing, and a couple other women’s sports and a bunch of club teams. And what is the difference if a booster pays a player to play for his/her favorite team outright or pays the player to… Read more »
so when do I get my $18.61 payment?
Is it surprising that the judge seems to not know some of the basic ideas here? How can it be almost completed and the judge not really have a thorough understanding. I dont know if this thing gets passed.
I was a D1 athlete in another era.
There is not much that I recognize in the current college sports scene.
Agree.
What happened to being grateful for the education, experience of being a collegiate athlete, and the chance to continue love for a sport.
I remember being excited if we got more than one shirt for lifting, and being ok with giving back our parka at the end of the season to save money for next season.
We got to keep our warmups as seniors and earned parkas by selling programs at football games. Turned in team bags after each travel trip.These kids have zero idea about what they have these days.
Actually I’m pretty sure there’s just one main kid who’s unhappy with his haul (on the swimming side), most of my teammates were pretty thrilled about all the crap we got.
lol being grateful.
Every Football and Basketball player in the NCAA would like to thank you Grant House!!! Every other athlete wants to hit you with a bat (including swimmers). What a mess.
House does not care about anyone but himself.
You’d think the NIL money would be good enough, guess not. Everyone can be an “influencer” even if you’re not even good. There is something really wrong with this. Some of these athletes are making more $$ in college than they would being a low draft pick in a pro sport. Many are driving nicer cars that the rest of the world that is trying to make ends meet in this economy. Why is the OSU football team roster $20 million deep in NIL money? How many non-revenue sports could be save with that type of money? We’re teaching these kids NOTHING about economics and the real world by throwing money and free stuff at them. Just sad.
I’d argue we are teaching kids plenty about the real world.
Haha I came here to say exactly this.
I sometimes wonder what ‘real world’ people are living in when they talk about ‘the real world’.
I’m coming from the perspective of being a parent, paying the mortgage, making the car payment, paying for college, APR on credit cards of 25 percent. Both my kids were college athletes in non revenue sports and are now in graduate school with loans. It will come to an end and then playtime is over. You cannot be 18-23 forever. That’s the real world.
That everyone just gets individually mad at Grant House will never stop being funny to me.
(Because if I think about how baby-brained you all have to be to think that way, it’s too depressing.)
Could you explain this a little more—where do we assign blame for this fiasco? Or is it ultimately a good thing in your opinion? I’m struggling with this whole thing…
There are ten zillion other potential athletes that could have brought this suit, so I don’t really care that it’s House. (And another one would have, if it wasn’t him.)
And this isn’t what’s going to “kill” college sports. The whole way it’s set up has been a farce from the beginning, and every major conference cannibalizing themselves to grab as much immediate teevee money as they can is gonna hasten it a lot faster than this.
Because at the end of the day, regardless of who COULD have filed the suit, someone who should have realized this would negatively impact his sport DID file it. If he didn’t realize, that’s unforgivable ignorance, and if he did realize, he turned his back on the sport that gave him many years of college swimming in return for a payout.