NCAA set to allow direct payments to athletes

[simply1]

https://www.reuters.com/sports/ncaa-rule-change-would-permit-direct-payment-athletes-2025-04-22/

April 22 - In a major move that would allow schools to start directly paying their athletes, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors proposed deleting 153 rules from its handbook as part of nine potential legislative changes at a Monday meeting.
The proposals are pending approval of the $2.8 billion House settlement reached last year of three separate antitrust cases against the NCAA and college sports' power conferences. The proposals include name image and likeness compensation and regulation, a change from scholarship limits to roster limits, eligibility standards and the creation of a legal entity to oversee enforcement of the updated athlete compensation rules in Division I.

 

[jbhtexas]

This is basically a big nothing-burger.

The House Settlement doesn't preclude any future lawsuits against the NCAA regarding NIL.Thus, anything the NCAA does to try and regulate or oversee NIL compensation will just be challenged by someone else in court.

So, now the colleges can pay players, and players can still get unregulated multi-million $$$ NIL deals from the collectives, per state NIL laws.

https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf

 

[Mr Janny]

This is basically a big nothing-burger.

The House Settlement doesn't preclude any future lawsuits against the NCAA regarding NIL.Thus, anything the NCAA does to try and regulate or oversee NIL compensation will just be challenged by someone else in court.

So, now the colleges can pay players, and players can still get unregulated multi-million $$$ NIL deals from the collectives, per state NIL laws.

https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf

Not to mention, I think there are nearly 300 athletes who have opted out of being a part of the settlement. Some of them are proceeding with their own lawsuits and others likely will be in the future.
The House Settlement is far from the end of the story for the NCAA's legal trouble.

 

[NWICY]

This is basically a big nothing-burger.

The House Settlement doesn't preclude any future lawsuits against the NCAA regarding NIL.Thus, anything the NCAA does to try and regulate or oversee NIL compensation will just be challenged by someone else in court.

So, now the colleges can pay players, and players can still get unregulated multi-million $$$ NIL deals from the collectives, per state NIL laws.

https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf

So it's still the wild wild west? Good for a few, probably not the best for a lot of the athletes.
Well I guess we will watch and see what happens next

 

[CycloneDaddy]

Just burn it all down until their is a CBA in place.

 

[Mr Janny]

So it's still the wild wild west? Good for a few, probably not the best for a lot of the athletes.
Well I guess we will watch and see what happens next

I'm curious how this Clearinghouse is going to withstand challenge. I don't know that there's much legal basis for declaring one of these deals invalid, or "not fair market value." I can almost guarantee you that the first time a deal is rejected, a lawsuit will follow almost immediately. In fact, I'm guessing some lawyers will be deliberately attempting to get the Clearinghouse to deny a deal, just so they can sue

 

[Al_4_State]

I still can’t believe there hasn’t been a challenge to the “play 4 years” rule.

 

[cykadelic2]

I'm curious how this Clearinghouse is going to withstand challenge. I don't know that there's much legal basis for declaring one of these deals invalid, or "not fair market value." I can almost guarantee you that the first time a deal is rejected, a lawsuit will follow almost immediately. In fact, I'm guessing some lawyers will be deliberately attempting to get the Clearinghouse to deny a deal, just so they can sue

The Clearinghouse will have an arbitration process.

And Deloitte will have a database full of FMV comps to readily distinguish obvious pay for play from an affiliated booster's illegitimate firm (or legit firm) vs a legit endorsement deal from an established firm that isn't a complete outlier from Deloitte's FMV comps. Any athlete deal from a collective or an individual booster (i.e. pay for play) will be presumably flat out rejected after July 1st by the Clearinghouse which is why there is a current rush to get MBB and FB deals done and paid out (at insane amounts) before then.

But I am sure the Clearinghouse will be sued for an arbitration decision that some lawyer doesn't like. And that is another reason why the P4 Commissioners are seeking a Fed Anti-Trust exemption and Fed codification of House to prevent the lawsuits.

 

[Mr Janny]

The Clearinghouse will have an arbitration process.

And Deloitte will have a database full of FMV comps to readily distinguish obvious pay for play from an affiliated booster's illegitimate firm (or legit firm) vs a legit endorsement deal from an established firm that isn't a complete outlier from Deloitte's FMV comps. Any athlete deal from a collective or an individual booster (i.e. pay for play) will be presumably flat out rejected after July 1st by the Clearinghouse which is why there is a current rush to get MBB and FB deals done and paid out (at insane amounts) before then.

But I am sure the Clearinghouse will be sued for an arbitration decision that some lawyer doesn't like. And that is another reason why the P4 Commissioners are seeking a Fed Anti-Trust exemption and Fed codification of House to prevent the lawsuits.

I'd be very curious to see what legal defense the NCAA would try to mount against a suit challenging their ability to define a "valid" NIL deal.

 

[VeloClone]

I still can’t believe there hasn’t been a challenge to the “play 4 years” rule.

I thought I read about one just a week or two ago...

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I'd be very curious to see what legal defense the NCAA would try to mount against a suit challenging their ability to define a "valid" NIL deal.

There isn't one. The very definition of 'fair market value' is what someone is willing to pay for services rendered.

If a car dealer is willing to pay Athlete X $5M to be in an ad or appear on a billboard or attend a charity event, that's what the fair market value is. All of that is before we get to artificially limiting someone's ability to earn money without collective bargaining.

An anti-trust exemption is the only way out of this but there's no appetite for it legislatively at this point so I don't know how you get there. It's the wild, wild west for the foreseeable future.

 

[Cyclonsin]

There isn't one. The very definition of 'fair market value' is what someone is willing to pay for services rendered.

If a car dealer is willing to pay Athlete X $5M to be in an ad or appear on a billboard or attend a charity event, that's what the fair market value is. All of that is before we get to artificially limiting someone's ability to earn money without collective bargaining.

An anti-trust exemption is the only way out of this but there's no appetite for it legislatively at this point so I don't know how you get there. It's the wild, wild west for the foreseeable future.

Bingo.

I am by no means a lawyer, but I just don't see how the NCAA or this clearinghouse or whatever doesn't lose every lawsuit they're hit with when they attempt to limit what a player can earn.

There is no salary cap and there will be no salary cap. Get used to it, folks. We're still in the very early stages and have only begun to see the impacts of it.

 

[Mr Janny]

There isn't one. The very definition of 'fair market value' is what someone is willing to pay for services rendered.

If a car dealer is willing to pay Athlete X $5M to be in an ad or appear on a billboard or attend a charity event, that's what the fair market value is. All of that is before we get to artificially limiting someone's ability to earn money without collective bargaining.

An anti-trust exemption is the only way out of this but there's no appetite for it legislatively at this point so I don't know how you get there. It's the wild, wild west for the foreseeable future.

My thoughts exactly. I have a hard time seeing the Clearinghouse having much effect, beyond maybe causing the NIL deals to be worded in a specific way. Trying to argue that a player isn't worth what someone wants to pay them is a loser of a legal argument.

 

[cykadelic2]

There isn't one. The very definition of 'fair market value' is what someone is willing to pay for services rendered.

If a car dealer is willing to pay Athlete X $5M to be in an ad or appear on a billboard or attend a charity event, that's what the fair market value is. All of that is before we get to artificially limiting someone's ability to earn money without collective bargaining.

An anti-trust exemption is the only way out of this but there's no appetite for it legislatively at this point so I don't know how you get there. It's the wild, wild west for the foreseeable future.

Your FMV definition here is overly narrow. It isn't just what someone is willing to pay for services rendered especially when paid by a compulsive booster.

FMV is most commonly used by banking and insurance firms to determine the value of assets to be used as collateral and insurance. The government also uses FMV for taxation and eminent domain where they need a value for an asset. And the IRS uses FMV for charitable donations and other transactions, meaning deals between related parties. The Clearinghouse will apply similar FMV standards in distinguishing pay for play vs True NIL with extra focus on deals registered by athletes with booster businesses.

And to say there is no legislative appetite for an anti-trust exemption and codification of House is inaccurate given the volume of recent bi-partisan US Senate activity that has been reported.

 

[CloneJD]

My thoughts exactly. I have a hard time seeing the Clearinghouse having much effect, beyond maybe causing the NIL deals to be worded in a specific way. Trying to argue that a player isn't worth what someone wants to pay them is a loser of a legal argument.

It’s based on the salary cap. Basically they are ensuring that the salary cap isn’t being exceeded by illegitimate NIL deals. If the salary cap survives legal challenge, i would expect it’s enforcement mechanism to survive too.

 

[Cyhig]

Bingo.

I am by no means a lawyer, but I just don't see how the NCAA or this clearinghouse or whatever doesn't lose every lawsuit they're hit with when they attempt to limit what a player can earn.

There is no salary cap and there will be no salary cap. Get used to it, folks. We're still in the very early stages and have only begun to see the impacts of it.

No salary cap. Players can transfer at will. Just imagine if NFL players would be unrestricted free agents each year and with no salary cap

In my humble opinion, unless something changes, college sports will lose a lot of viewership within the next 10 years

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Your FMV definition here is overly narrow. It isn't just what someone is willing to pay for services rendered especially when paid by a compulsive booster.

FMV is most commonly used by banking and insurance firms to determine the value of assets to be used as collateral and insurance. The government also uses FMV for taxation and eminent domain where they need a value for an asset. And the IRS uses FMV for charitable donations and other transactions, meaning deals between related parties. The Clearinghouse will apply similar FMV standards in distinguishing pay for play vs True NIL with extra focus on deals registered by athletes with booster businesses.

And to say there is no legislative appetite for an anti-trust exemption and codification of House is inaccurate given the volume of recent bi-partisan US Senate activity that has been reported.

You're way more optimistic that this is going to stop anything than literally anyone I've talked to from within athletic departments. I hope you're right, I really do but the people that live this think the clearinghouse lasts about 15 minutes and we're right back where we were.

 

[Letterkenny]

I still can’t believe there hasn’t been a challenge to the “play 4 years” rule.

Or requiring athletes to attend classes and get a good enough GPA to maintain "eligibility".

 

[Letterkenny]

You're way more optimistic that this is going to stop anything than literally anyone I've talked to from within athletic departments. I hope you're right, I really do but the people that live this think the clearinghouse lasts about 15 minutes and we're right back where we were.

Brent Blum seems to think it'll make a big difference.

 

[cykadelic2]

You're way more optimistic that this is going to stop anything than literally anyone I've talked to from within athletic departments. I hope you're right, I really do but the people that live this think the clearinghouse lasts about 15 minutes and we're right back where we were.

There is obvious recognition and respect of the upcoming changes by many boosters, collectives, coaches and agents given the mad rush to get insane FB/MBB pay for play deals done before July 1st so they avoid Clearinghouse registration/review.