Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[94GRAD]

Rumors of a 2.7 billion dollar settlement

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...it-sources-say

[xubrew]

Rumors of a 2.7 billion dollar settlement

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...it-sources-say

There is a fair amount of stuff in this article...

Sources told ESPN this week that parties have proposed the NCAA's national office -- rather than its individual member schools or conferences -- would pay for the settlement of past damages over a period of 10 years. The NCAA payments would be paid to former college athletes who say they were illegally prevented from making money by selling the rights to their name, image and likeness

I really didn't think the NCAA's National Office had $2.7 billion. But...okay.

The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, per sources. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future. Sources have told ESPN that schools are anticipating a ceiling of nearly $20 million per year for athlete revenue share moving forward.

Basic legal question...

In order for there to be a "ceiling" of $20 million per year (or any other amount), then don't the current and future players have to be represented in that agreement?? SAAC, or some other orgranization that represents the student-athletes would have to be involved in agreeing to that. Otherwise, it lays the groundwork for future anti-trust lawsuits if the players ever feel they can/should get more.

Now, to re-quote something...

The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, per sources. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future

Schools and conferences would share their revenue with the players. This is important. The more revenue a school and conference has, the more the players at those schools are going to get. The SEC and Big Ten have far more revenue to share than, say, the Sun Belt and MAC. So, players in the SEC and Big Ten will get more under this model. Potentially A LOT more!! Am I wrong in thinking that? This will almost assuredly make competitive balance within college sports a lot less balanced. It will also mean that more players who have opportunities to transfer into bigger money conferences will do so at a much higher rate than what they are now, and it's happening quite a bit right now as it is.

College sports leaders have been asking Congress to write a new federal law for several years that would, among other things, protect them from future litigation.

I'm WAAAAY past the point of thinking that Congress will ever write any such laws. If that were going to happen, then it would have already happened. I think the NCAA should stop holding out hope that they will be given some sort of exception to antitrust laws. In fact, I think it's kind of insane. I agree with what Einstein said about insanity.



I am not entirely certain how this will play out, but I do believe that the NCAA will look to settle this over the summer. Part of the settlement will be the revenue sharing that is listed above. Schools and conferences can pay players directly from their revenue sharing, and conferences with more money can pay more money. I think that happens by the end of the summer. Over the last few years we've seen a lot of high caliber players find homes at non-major programs, and it's been great to watch. I think that's over. The Big Ten and SEC will operate on a level that's above everyone else, the ACC and Big 12 will operate on a level that's above everyone else other than the Big Ten and SEC, and then everyone else will struggle to even keep up.

And, my "Airing of Grievances" are the same grievances I've had for about fifteen years now. I feel this could have been avoided had the NCAA and leaders within college sports not been so stupid and agreed to share some revenue with the players before now. But, they didn't. They didn't want to give up that control. Well, as a result, they've now lost a lot more control than they otherwise would have. This didn't have to play out the way that it has played out.

[paulxu]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

[xubrew]

If there is a $20 million cap/year/school, why are you worried about the big schools paying more than the mid-majors?
And if that has to be shared by the football teams, it seems schools like ours could compete with what they have left over for basketball.

(maybe I don't understand the parameters of the settlement proposed)

Good question.

My thinking is that the plaintiffs won't accept the $20 million dollar cap, and even if they do it won't be long before the NCAA is back in court again for having a cap that was not collectively bargained with the players being represented. The first time a player is told "well, we can't pay you more because of the $20 million dollar cap limit" it will land right back into the courts. If that term can be collectively bargained, then I'd feel much better about it. But, Texas A&M just paid Jimbo Fisher $75 million to NOT coach their team. If I'm representing the players, I'm asking for a lot more than just $20 million as part of the settlement, or just askin for no cap at all that isn't collectively bargained.

I can't help but think that the NCAA's leaders don't seem to have even a basic understanding of antitrust law and why they're in so much trouble for being in violation of it.

[xubrew]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

[MHettel]

Remember three years ago when the Supreme Court totally blew up the NCAA after the Alston Case?? And Brett Kavanaugh wrote that scathing concurring opinion that all but said that more lawsuits are likely to come because what the NCAA was doing was completely illegal?? He also said that the NCAA needed to collectively bargain with the players.

So, that's my concern. They're throwing a cap out there that hasn't been collectively bargained and are basically ignoring the Supreme Court. That strikes me as not a smart move.

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

[xubrew]

Would you PLEASE stop saying “collective bargaining”.

That applies when a union exists. There is no union.

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

[MHettel]

That's actually my entire point.

I'm saying it because that's what the Supreme Court said three years ago. The NCAA would be well served to not ignore what they said. They cannot make a rule like that unless it is collectively bargained. Since there is no union or representation, then there can be no cap. That cannot be a part of the settlement. If it is, it will be back in court again very soon, and the NCAA will lose again.

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

[xubrew]

No, you are missing the point. they CAN do it. Because there is no union. If that results in the formation of a union, then they will reach a new agreement through collective bargaining.

The scenario you are describing just doesnt make sense. If there were a union, then OF COURSE they couldnt unilaterally impose a cap. But there ISNT, so they CAN.

Okay, perhaps I’m missing something. I’m trying to understand this and I’m open to the possibility that I am missing something.

The NCAA has tried this before. Why was this considered to be blatantly illegal? There are coaches associations, but no unions. So what am I missing? And why are actual lawyers saying the NCAA cannot implement a cap like this?? And after the Alston Case ruling why did a Supreme Court Justice say to the NCAA that they needed to collectively bargain with the players?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede...h=3f23580555e5

[bobbiemcgee]

https://nil-ncaa.com/ a bit confusing and incomplete.