The class certification hearing for House v. NCAA, a potentially multi-billion dollar antitrust lawsuit featuring former Arizona State swimmer Grant House as the lead plaintiff, didn’t quite play out the way the NCAA had hoped on Thursday in Oakland, California.
House’s lawyers argued that the three plaintiffs should represent three classes including more than 14,500 college athletes seeking backpay for their forfeited publicity rights dating back to 2016 — also known as the ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) — which the NCAA granted them in 2021. They also claim college athletes continue to be denied a share of revenue from television and video games, which they call broadcast NIL (BNIL).
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over successful class action lawsuits in the past brought by Ed O’Bannon and Shawne Alston, seemed skeptical about many of the NCAA’s counterarguments.
Rakesh Kilaru, an attorney for the defendants, argued that NIL is too individualized to be litigated on a class action basis. He said that under the plaintiffs’ proposed math for BNIL, college athletes could earn up to $400,000 if they stayed in college for four years, which might have dissuaded some from going pro.
Judge Wilken told Kilaru “you can’t unwrap facts” in reference to his hypotheticals. She used the example of how the law would never cover someone who broke their leg in first grade and claimed it prevented them from playing professional football because alternative histories are impossible to prove. One of House’s attorneys pointed out that most pro prospects could earn more than $400,000 at the next level anyway.
Kilaru also argued that damages payments would violated Title IX because more money would go to men than women. However, Jeffrey Kessler, one of House’s lawyers, countered that the reason why more television money goes to men is because the contracts are structured that way.
“Maybe we should ask how the NCAA promotes women’s basketball,” Kessler said.
Wilken appeared to agree. “Maybe schools and conferences should be obligated to fix that under Title IX.”
“That’s exactly right,” Kessler said.
Kilaru claimed that college athletes shouldn’t be paid extra for broadcast revenue because pro athletes aren’t paid separately for their so-called BNIL. But Judge Wilken was quick to point out that pro athletes are paid salaries that reflect broadcasting.
Kessler emphasized that group licensing opportunities that pay all players equally — such as video games and collectibles — make NIL suitable for a class action certification, which requires members of each class to share typical experiences.
Unfortunately for the NCAA, this case doesn’t look like it’s going away anytime soon. Trial is tentatively set for January of 2025.
Related:
Gray House could be the next Curt Flood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Flood
In other news, Recast is reportedly having administrative problems and may go bankrupt.
That is awesome news for sports fans and deserved for a la carte apologists.
I might get a lot of down votes for this…. If college athletes want revenue sharing or even NIL, they shouldn’t be getting full ride scholarships though college. I have to pay $100K a year per kid (including room and board) for my kids to go through college. So why should college athletes get full ride on the front end and NIL and revenue sharing on the back end. Seems quite unfair to most college students.
what school are you paying 100K at? because Columbia is the highest I found at $85K
Without disclosing the schools, tuition about $65K, room and board about $30K, books and supplies >$3K. Ok. I exaggerated…. $98K instead of $100K.
That simple, the schools don’t make enough money without getting the best athletes. The way the do that is offering something, and if that can’t be actual NIL deals outright (cough cough alumni-boosters) than they have to offer them something. And that’s a scholarship, not to mention you’re a bit naive on how the system works.
Football-basketball are the only sports with close to full roster full ride scholarships. All other sports are limited, and split the money amongst the players, and at times the better ones get more money. This is because the football basketball group brings in the most money to the university
Very few student-athletes get full “free ride” scholarships. What school costs you $100k per kid per year? $400k for an undergrad degree is silly. If the cost isn’t an issue, why are you complaining? If the cost is an issue, you should have set more reasonable expectations with them. Don’t be mad at the kids who mostly are getting partial scholarships, if anything at all.
Really, it’s not fair is the gist of your argument? If you want the sweet NIL deal and a full ride, earn it. Perform to the standards that make you a candidate.
How will this affect Fletcher Madsen?
Shocker a ruling by judge in Bay Area that’s political…. Same with crazy right wing areas… judges aren’t supposed to make laws but interpret them with no bias. Country can’t work together to get consensus from open minded leadership that’s no polarizing. Shame on us.
As an outsider, watching how things unraveled in the US is fascinating.
What part of this is political?
Grant House was robbed of his NIL value of approximately $37 prior to the rules changing.
SS, can we please change the voting rules so everyone has an opportunity to upvote this as much as they want?
Might be pushing it ðŸ˜
That’s $1 per year
Yes, there are quite a few class action suits that have $37 or less in damages.
…class action lawsuits are really just a way for lawyers to bundle a big payday….
… and to punish bad behavior where large companies can make hundreds of millions off small transactions (meaning potential plaintiffs don’t have the incentive to seek redress). And I’m not a lawyer.
I still don’t understand why Grant House is involved with this. I’m not necessarily siding with the NCAA, but if House wins would that possibly be the end of non-revenue sports? I admittedly have a limited understanding of this, but I thought that the money from football broadcasting deals is important for the funding of NCAA swimming.
The commentary from this Judge also seems comically vapid.
The NCAA attorneys didn’t make any argument that there’s no contingent claim an NCAA swimmer could possibly make. Ed O’Bannon was able to argue college basketball TV or gaming or swag revenue had SOME attribution to the players & how that revenue model for the NBA could be replicated to NCAA men’s basketball.
House is making a bad argument & this federal judge seems to be overtly trying to make his case for him, which is wildly inappropriate.
Exactly what we all fear. That playing players may speed up killing off non-revenue sports.
Speculating here but….
His mom is a lawyer that works for the firm involved with the Alston case, and he just did a grad program in Sports Law and Management.
Having your name attached to a suit like this (especially if he wins) will definitely elevate his job offers and get him sport agency if he wants that.
It may just be more about Grant than giving a crap about the athletes.
How is this guy still around