NCAA Settlement
- Thread starter isucy86
- Start date
Sources: Big 12 first to settle House v. NCAA case
The Big 12 conference became the first named party in the House v. NCAA case to vote to settle that case and related anti-trust cases, sources told ESPN.
www.espn.com
How on earth are they going to structure paying former players?
Marcus Fizer gets the same as a role player? Or less because only three years?
Marcus Fizer gets the same as a role player? Or less because only three years?
I don't think it's fair to blame this on the NCAA. They were trying to fulfill their mission: to regulate collegiate sports as amateur competition. The Supreme Court said "No, players must be able to earn money from NIL." ESPN chose to elevate the SEC and BIG as a money grab. Congress could have stepped in to restore the NCAA's authority but didn't. If the didn't settle this, they risked losing multiple times more money at trial. The only money the NCAA has direct control over is the money they pay out from TV money. They had to lower payouts to everyone or have another lawsuit. Smaller schools paid more because there are so many more of them. Part of the settlement was revenue sharing. A major problem is any attempt by the NCAA to regulate THAT will risk another antitrust lawsuit. We're all in a minecart headed downhill with no brakes.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,364
- 29,953
- 113
That is not what the Supreme Court said. The Alston case was specifically about providing non-cash compensation for academic purposes. They upheld that schools agreeing to restrict this kind of benefit was an antitrust violation.
The way the SCOTUS factored in was Kavanaugh's concurring opinion that warned the NCAA that future challenges to their business model would likely not go in their favor. But it didn't compel the NCAA to allow NIL. NIL is here because of state laws. Multiple states had laws going into effect on July 1, 2021 that made it illegal for a school to restrict a student's right to capitalize on their name image and likeness.
Ultimately it's very fair to blame the NCAA for the state of things, in my opinion. They clung to an outdated, overly restrictive business model, and refused to modernize. They dragged their feet and got run over in the end.
So the B12 is settling, in the big picture once the athletes are being paid by the University does the need for NIL go away? or will it be a additional income stream like a bonus? @brentblum how is this going to work in the long run?
If this was addressed somewhere else please feel free to merge. I did a quick search and missed it if available.
If this was addressed somewhere else please feel free to merge. I did a quick search and missed it if available.
I believe in some pod info he mentioned it may or may not be with the uncertainty but it could mean that if players are paid by the university they have to sign a contract that prevents their NIL opportunity or that it would then go to the university. If I'm understanding that correctly it means they would be able to do either/or but not both and would negotiate length of contracts possibly. Thats muddy but thats how I understand the possibility currently.
Everyone is settling, not just the Big12. There is an extensive thread on it in the General College Sports forum.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,364
- 29,953
- 113
It depends on the details. And it might vary from athlete to athlete. For example, Iowa State might be able to offer a basketball player a contract for $50k a year in revenue sharing with the stipulation that the athlete signs over all NIL rights to the school.
A 3 star player might take that deal.
A 5 star player might say "No deal. I can make more than $50k with my NIL rights outside of your revenue sharing."
Iowa State might say "Well signing over your NIL rights is a requirement for us" and that's probably fine. But if all schools agreed to make it a requirement, that would susceptible to legal action on antitrust grounds.
So, NIL could very well still be around even after this settlement
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,364
- 29,953
- 113
What balance? When has it been balanced?
I know that's what he discussed in a pod, but if enough schools don't do that it'll just be one more recruiting disadvantage for us. The only way that really works is if every school does it, which will never happen. And that would likely result in yet another lawsuit against the schools.
The only way I can see there ever being any fairness in this sport is with a CBA. That might be coming one day, but I suspect it would be by conference at first, if at all.
Agree, and the goal would be NIL as intended (not Pay for Play) with the Feds granting an enforcement arm outside of the NCAA (which doesn't have subpoena power).
Instead of us giving money to WeWill to pay the players, we'll give money to Iowa State's Athletic Department to pay the players.
It's hilarious to me when I hear radio people claim that in the long-term the AD of schools will pay players directly and the fans wont be left footing the bill like they are now with NIL. Where exactly do they think AD funding comes from? Even TV revenue ultimately comes from fans watching games buying the products that are sold by advertisers. Fans are the customers. They fund the whole thing just like with any other product.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,364
- 29,953
- 113
I have a hard time seeing that come to fruition. "Pay for Play" is only a pejorative in the realm of college athletics. To the rest of the world, that's just how things work. The NCAA has had their teeth kicked in by the court system, trying to explain why they should be held to a different standard than the rest of the world. It's just can't see a Federal law being enacted that not only grants the NCAA the special treatment that they desire, but also provides additional power to an investigative body tasked with enforcing penalties for "violations" that wouldn't break the law in any other business scenario.
