The NCAA and every Power 5 conference agreed to settle in the House v. NCAA settlement. The new era of revenue sharing with college athletes is set to begin in 2025. $22 million is the cap for the first year. It will increase by 4% annually, and as TV contracts are updated it will likely increase by more. The repost and article do a job of detailing different aspects of the settlement and various subjects to consider such as Title IX, employment, NIL collectives, and the transfer portal. One thing that stood out to me was the last few sentences of the article: “As part of the settlement, a school is expected to have the ability to purchase a player’s exclusive NIL rights — a significant and possibly binding deal and one that would eliminate all third-party payment as well.” Recently, an attorney told me that you should never sign an exclusive deal. In some cases, I might disagree. But this is not one of them. In the NCAA’s and conferences’ attempt to restrict NIL collectives from making additional payments to college athletes, it seems they’re still attempting to violate antitrust laws. Perhaps this is why they continue to fight and ask congress for antitrust exemption. And perhaps the NCAA and the Power 5 conferences’ stance is that, “if we’re sharing the revenue with you athletes as an NIL payment, then you don’t need any additional NIL payments from third parties.” If a player can make additional money from his NIL, shouldn’t he be allowed. If this is instituted, I wonder if this will be the standard mandated to follow in the revenue-sharing era, or will schools have the flexibility to not issue exclusive NIL contracts? It would certainly give a school an advantage to not issue exclusive NIL deal. It’ll be interesting to see. #ncaa #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #antitrustlaw #NIL
Attorney at Kennyhertz Perry | College Sports Law Attorney | Sports Law | NIL Attorney | Business Law | Former Division I College Basketball Player
With the six defendants (NCAA and the Power 5 conferences) all now having approved the terms of the House settlement, more details are emerging on what it contains. Many of the elements are things you see in pro league collective bargaining agreements. The annual revenue sharing cap of $22 million for all of a school’s athletes is one. The cap enforcement mechanism that has recently come to light is another. It will require athletes to report 3rd party #NIL deals to a central authority make sure the deals are “true NIL” for “fair market value,” and not “pay for play.” The obvious difference between the House settlement and pro leagues is that the House rev sharing cap, the cap enforcement mechanism, and things like new roster limits were not collectively bargained. So they remain vulnerable to antitrust attack from future college athletes. Which is why the NCAA will continue seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress. Also, the fact that the cap enforcement mechanism seeks to prevent 3rd party NIL deals from serving as “pay for play,” and as a way to evade the revenue sharing cap, seems to admit the payments from schools to athletes themselves are “pay for play” despite being classified as NIL payments. This is one reason the NCAA will continue seeking a law that says college athletes aren’t employees. The new direct payments from schools to athletes could make it harder to fight the employment issue in the courts/NLRB. There are a host of other unsettled issues that will come out of the House settlement, such as whether Title IX mandates the revenue sharing payments be equally divided among a school’s male and female athletes. I personally don’t think it does and that many schools will pay based on the market value of the use of the athletes’ NILs in tv broadcasts. But some schools will assume they have to divide payments up equally. Another issue is how this settlement affects NIL collectives. The short answer is that many of them aren’t going anywhere. But the NCAA will attempt to lessen their influence. I foresee some legal battles around this effort. Ross Dellenger does a job of covering many of the issues coming out of the settlement in the article below. It’s going to be fun helping schools and others navigate this new world and all of the legal issues it will present. #nameimagelikeness #ncaa #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #LinkedInSports https://lnkd.in/gZb2nKEt
I like your take on the agreement. Like to talk more. Let’s set something up.
Co-Owner, AE Creating Elite
6moGreat article & information. No one knows how much money the NCAA has made from athletes since its inception. This clause seems like a continuation to do so! ESPN did a panel discussion about this years ago with prominent agents, athletes, & college administrators. One of the surprises & revealing outcomes from this was a representative from CBS Sports who had the NCAA broadcasting contract, revealed that CBS set aside $300 million in the multi billion dollar contract for student athletes, to use for any of their Needs. The athletes never knew this nor saw any of the money! 🤔