[needle]

Good points by an attorney here describing potential problems with the settlement:

 The NCAA will likely portray the settlement as providing closure to years of litigation, including historic losses to high-profile cases brought by Ed O’Bannon and Shawne Alston.

The problem with that narrative: It’s wrong.

For starters, players could opt out of the settlement and sue. Even if that doesn’t happen, this settlement can’t stop other litigation.

...

 The fact that athletes will now be directly paid could also be used by attorneys representing players seeking employment recognition as evidence of an employment relationship. While the NCAA might still call the athletes “student-athletes,” that controversial moniker could increasingly seem like form over substance.

There’s also Title IX to consider. It would be foolish for the NCAA and schools to adopt a system to resolve antitrust claims only to then invite Title IX lawsuits. Any system that pays players must be done in a way that is equitable on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title IX. There are different ways to comply with Title IX, but there are also seasoned Title IX attorneys who could find, for example, higher pay to college football stars than women basketball players to reflect a Title IX problem. Those attorneys might also argue that payments are evidence of employment and thus Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims are also in play.  

The article notes that Stanford women's soccer player Nya Harrison is among the plaintiffs.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234780001/

[needle]

Good points by an attorney here describing potential problems with the settlement:

 The NCAA will likely portray the settlement as providing closure to years of litigation, including historic losses to high-profile cases brought by Ed O’Bannon and Shawne Alston.

The problem with that narrative: It’s wrong.

For starters, players could opt out of the settlement and sue. Even if that doesn’t happen, this settlement can’t stop other litigation.

...

 The fact that athletes will now be directly paid could also be used by attorneys representing players seeking employment recognition as evidence of an employment relationship. While the NCAA might still call the athletes “student-athletes,” that controversial moniker could increasingly seem like form over substance.

There’s also Title IX to consider. It would be foolish for the NCAA and schools to adopt a system to resolve antitrust claims only to then invite Title IX lawsuits. Any system that pays players must be done in a way that is equitable on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title IX. There are different ways to comply with Title IX, but there are also seasoned Title IX attorneys who could find, for example, higher pay to college football stars than women basketball players to reflect a Title IX problem. Those attorneys might also argue that payments are evidence of employment and thus Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims are also in play.  

The article notes that Stanford women's soccer player Nya Harrison is among the plaintiffs.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234780001/