Hearing on NIL settlement case this Monday

[retired711]

Here is a summary by a prominent law firm of where things stand right now:

https://www.crowell.com/en/insights...proval-hearing-set-for-april-7-a-brief-primer

Note that this "primer" doesn't mention third party NIL agreements (agreements between athletes and entities other than their schools). But the primer does link to this NCAA site that discusses what will be allowed and how the restrictions will be enforced.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/3/12...oward-implementation-of-house-settlement.aspx

 

[WhiteBus]

Here is a summary by a prominent law firm of where things stand right now:

https://www.crowell.com/en/insights...proval-hearing-set-for-april-7-a-brief-primer

Note that this "primer" doesn't mention third party NIL agreements (agreements between athletes and entities other than their schools). But the primer does link to this NCAA site that discusses what will be allowed and how the restrictions will be enforced.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/3/12...oward-implementation-of-house-settlement.aspx

The NCAA doesn't have a say on NIL. Neither does Congress.

 

[retired711]

The NCAA doesn't have a say on NIL. Neither does Congress.. Congress is free to change the antitrust laws any time it wants. It could ban or restrict NIL. As for the NCAA, it is true that it is bound by the terms of the settlement that it entered into the settlement puts a lot of the responsibility for implementation on it. That's why the NCAA has, for instance, retained Deloitte and a company to develop software.

Congress passed the antitrust laws and is free to change them anytime it wants. So Congress could ban or restrict NIL. The NCAA cannot change the terms of the settlement that it entered into. But a lot of the responsibility for implementing the settlement will fall on the NCAA, as the second link shows.

 

[WhiteBus]

Congress passed the antitrust laws and is free to change them anytime it wants. So Congress could ban or restrict NIL. The NCAA cannot change the terms of the settlement that it entered into. But a lot of the responsibility for implementing the settlement will fall on the NCAA, as the second link shows.

No they can't. Congress passed sharing money to all players at all schools. NIL is a settlement that is not associated with colleges participating, it's private money. NIL is a contract between a player and a business.

 

[retired711]

No they can't. Congress passed sharing money to all players at all schools. NIL is a settlement that is not associated with colleges participating, it's private money. NIL is a contract between a player and a business.

I don't know what you mean by your "Congress passed" sentence. Congress hasn't passed anything about NIL. The law suit settlement *is* associated with colleges participating; it is the colleges that will be paying the players for their NIL. The players can enter into additional NIL agreements with other entities; but these are regulated under the law suit settlement to ensure they are not "pay for play" deals. The two items I linked make all of this clear.

 

[WhiteBus]

I don't know what you mean by your "Congress passed" sentence. Congress hasn't passed anything about NIL. The law suit settlement *is* associated with colleges participating; it is the colleges that will be paying the players for their NIL. The players can enter into additional NIL agreements with other entities; but these are regulated under the law suit settlement to ensure they are not "pay for play" deals. The two items I linked make all of this clear.

No it didn't. The NIL isn't subject to Congress changing. It's private marketing. Anyone can be paid for their image, regardless of if they play college or just you and me.

 

[retired711]

No it didn't. The NIL isn't subject to Congress changing. It's private marketing. Anyone can be paid for their image, regardless of if they play college or just you and me.

I am not following you well. The colleges will be paying athletes for their NIL. (Read the first link) Athletes can make outside NIL deals, but deals with boosters have to have a "valid business purpose" rather than be pay to pay arrangements. That's why the NCAA has hired Deloitte to ensure that the deals are valid -- that a player isn't being paid a sum out of proportion to its value to a business.

Congress could change all this anytime it wants. For instance, Congress could amend the antitrust laws to allow restrictions on transferability. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[WhiteBus]

I am not following you well. The colleges will be paying athletes for their NIL. (Read the first link) Athletes can make outside NIL deals, but deals with boosters have to have a "valid business purpose" rather than be pay to pay arrangements. That's why the NCAA has hired Deloitte to ensure that the deals are valid -- that a player isn't being paid a sum out of proportion to its value to a business.

Congress could change all this anytime it wants. For instance, Congress could amend the antitrust laws to allow restrictions on transferability. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

So you are saying that Congress can refuse college athletes for getting market value for their image and likeness when non athletes can earn anything?
Your confused on two different issues.

 

[retired711]

So you are saying that Congress can refuse college athletes for getting market value for their image and likeness when non athletes can earn anything?
Your confused on two different issues.

Yes, Congress could allow the NCAA to reinstate the old ban on athletes receiving compensation for NIL if it wanted to. All Congerss would have to do would be to amend the antitrust laws to let the NCAA do so. But that's very ulikely. If that was going to happen, it would have happened already. If Congress does anything, which I doubt, it would be to allow the NCAA and the schools to make rules restricting transfers so that college teams aren't made up of one-year mercenaries.

 

[WhiteBus]

Yes, Congress could allow the NCAA to reinstate the old ban on athletes receiving compensation for NIL if it wanted to. All Congerss would have to do would be to amend the antitrust laws to let the NCAA do so. But that's very ulikely. If that was going to happen, it would have happened already. If Congress does anything, which I doubt, it would be to allow the NCAA and the schools to make rules restricting transfers so that college teams aren't made up of one-year mercenaries.

Your confusing the NIL with the shared payouts by college to athletes that will take affect.
Nobody is stopping payments for NIL. Congress has no say on discrimination against college players and the amateur status by the sports organization. It is a private matter. Nothing to do with a college or Congress

 

[retired711]

Your confusing the NIL with the shared payouts by college to athletes that will take affect.
Nobody is stopping payments for NIL. Congress has no say on discrimination against college players and the amateur status by the sports organization. It is a private matter. Nothing to do with a college or Congress

If you read the first item I linked, you will see that the payments by the colleges to the athletes under the settlement are being regarded as payments for the athletes' NIL. That may make no sense, but it is understandable in a lawsuit that was brought over NIL payments.

The settlement allows NIL payments from third parties (that is, entities other than the schools) to athletes with one restriction: If the third party is an entity or individual "closely affiliates" with a school, then the deal with the athlete is permissible only if it shown to have a valid business purpose rather than being a disguised pay-for-play scheme.

As for Congress, I don't mean to be flip but it can do almost anything it wants. It was Congress that made the antitrust laws under which the NIL ban was struck down, and Congress if it wanted could amend the antitrust laws to bring the NIL ban back. It isn't going to, but it could. I think, as I said above, that if it does anything it will be to amend the antitrust laws to permit the colleges and NCAA to restrict athletes' ability to transfer.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

 

[WhiteBus]

If you read the first item I linked, you will see that the payments by the colleges to the athletes under the settlement are being regarded as payments for the athletes' NIL. That may make no sense, but it is understandable in a lawsuit that was brought over NIL payments.

The settlement allows NIL payments from third parties (that is, entities other than the schools) to athletes with one restriction: If the third party is an entity or individual "closely affiliates" with a school, then the deal with the athlete is permissible only if it shown to have a valid business purpose rather than being a disguised pay-for-play scheme.

As for Congress, I don't mean to be flip but it can do almost anything it wants. It was Congress that made the antitrust laws under which the NIL ban was struck down, and Congress if it wanted could amend the antitrust laws to bring the NIL ban back. It isn't going to, but it could. I think, as I said above, that if it does anything it will be to amend the antitrust laws to permit the colleges and NCAA to restrict athletes' ability to transfer.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

I'll be flip. You don't understand anything. Congress can not single out a small group of people that can't get paid for commercials endorsements. The courts gave them that right. Again you are confused on two separate topics.

 

[retired711]

I'll be flip. You don't understand anything. Congress can not single out a small group of people that can't get paid for commercials endorsements. The courts gave them that right. Again you are confused on two separate topics.

OK, let's take it from the top. For decades, NCAA rules barred college athletes from getting paid for endorsements, commercials, etc. Eventually the courts decided that those rules violated Federal antitrust laws -- which are laws passed by Congress. There is nothing to stop Congress from amending the antitrust laws to allow the NCAA to re-impose those rules. It's not going to happen, but it is something Congress could do if it wanted to.

I'll let the readership decide which of us doesn't "understand anything."

 

[WhiteBus]

OK, let's take it from the top. For decades, NCAA rules barred college athletes from getting paid for endorsements, commercials, etc. Eventually the courts decided that those rules violated Federal antitrust laws -- which are laws passed by Congress. There is nothing to stop Congress from amending the antitrust laws to allow the NCAA to re-impose those rules. It's not going to happen, but it is something Congress could do if it wanted to.

I'll let the readership decide which of us doesn't "understand anything."

Jeeze! You start with decades ago. Wake up!
Yes there is things that stop Congress from selecting a small group of people who can earn money from NIL.
The fact you are quoting decades ago speaks volumes how much you don't know.

 

[retired711]

Jeeze! You start with decades ago. Wake up!
Yes there is things that stop Congress from selecting a small group of people who can earn money from NIL.
The fact you are quoting decades ago speaks volumes how much you don't know.

I'm not the one who's asleep. I'm just telling you the history. The Supreme Court's Alston decision in 2021 held that the NCAA's longstanding restrictions on student athletes violated the anti-trust laws. That decision allowed athletes to get paid for their NIL; before then, they couldn't. Congress could have responded by changing the anti-trust laws to permit the NCAA to restore the restrictions. It hasn't and it won't.

 

[WhiteBus]

I'm not the one who's asleep. I'm just telling you the history. The Supreme Court's Alston decision in 2021 held that the NCAA's longstanding restrictions on student athletes violated the anti-trust laws. That decision allowed athletes to get paid for their NIL; before then, they couldn't. Congress could have responded by changing the anti-trust laws to permit the NCAA to restore the restrictions. It hasn't and it won't.

2021 isn't decades ago!

You are wrong that Congress would have the right to overturn the courts ruling regarding the NIL. More likely expand on it.

 

[Fat Koko]

I’m with retired711 on this. The NCAA does have a say. Athletes must disclose NIL deals and Deloitte must vet them and then enforce compliance.

The problem I see is vetting and enforcing tens of thousands of NIL deals each year is unworkable. The settlement replaces one mess with another mess.

Last month, Bloomberg had an excellent article on this dilemma. The Lawrence guy mentioned is Blake Lawrence, the co-founder of Opendorse.

Here is the key part of the article:

The logistical task before Deloitte in setting up a clearinghouse, Lawrence says, is a daunting one: “I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemy, because I’ve done it.” Let’s assume, however, that Deloitte can get the job done. That’s when the problems really begin.

Schools are counting on athletes to report their deals. Not all will. While the NCAA has a rule requiring disclosure, many players have decided it’s toothless and have opted to ignore it. Lawrence estimates that 80% of NIL transactions go undisclosed, a rate he expects to stay the same once the settlement is in effect. This leaves the NCAA in the familiar position of having to decide what to do when a star recruit from a low-income family shows up to school in a Lamborghini.

 

[retired711]

2021 isn't decades ago!

You are wrong that Congress would have the right to overturn the courts ruling regarding the NIL. More likely expand on it.

On your first sentence: If you read my prior posts, I didn't say that 2021 was decades ago. What I said is that the NCAA for decades banned athletes from selling their NIL. The 2021 Supreme Court decision changed that.

On your second sentence: As I've said multiple times in this thread, I think it is extremely unlikely that Congress would try to, in effect, overturn the 2021 decision. So I"m not sure why we're debating whether Congress could do that. But it probably could if it wanted to. Congress can change the law whenever it wants unless the change would violate the Constitution. I don't see a good argument that a law passed by Congress returning to the pre-2021 situation would be unconstitutional. There is a big difference between something being wrong and it being unconstitutional.