[Spiny_Norman]

The ITA (Intercollegiate Tennis Association) has submitted a letter to the judge overseeing the House case expressing the concern that the settlement as proposed will irreparably harm college sports. Primary concern - the fallout on other sports if 95% of the payout goes to football and basketball. Also called out are the fallacy of NIL and the hypocrisy of amateurism as applied to collegiate tennis players.

Worth a read. I don't know if it will have any impact however in the short term. It may take athletic programs dropping sports in large numbers before policymakers start to get concerned and act.

https://wearecollegetennis.com/2025/01/2...ia-wilken/

[Spiny_Norman]

The ITA (Intercollegiate Tennis Association) has submitted a letter to the judge overseeing the House case expressing the concern that the settlement as proposed will irreparably harm college sports. Primary concern - the fallout on other sports if 95% of the payout goes to football and basketball. Also called out are the fallacy of NIL and the hypocrisy of amateurism as applied to collegiate tennis players.

Worth a read. I don't know if it will have any impact however in the short term. It may take athletic programs dropping sports in large numbers before policymakers start to get concerned and act.

https://wearecollegetennis.com/2025/01/2...ia-wilken/

[dabigv13]

A Stanford preferred walk-on WR, David Kasemervisz, also submitted an objection to the House settlement. 

Kasemervisz, a wide receiver and special teams player over the last four seasons, objects to the settlement limiting recovery to full grant-in-aid players as part of the “settlement football and men’s basketball class.” That class covers Power Five basketball and football players who competed from 2016 to 2024. Kasemervisz was a preferred walk-on, meaning he didn’t have to try out for the team. However, Kasemervisz notes, he “did not receive the same financial benefits” as a grant-in-aid player.

Kasemervisz emphasizes that everything about his experience playing football at Stanford, including time spent on practices, training, attending meetings and satisfying athletic and academic standards, resembled the experiences of his teammates. He played in games that were broadcast on TV and his NIL was used.

Kasemervisz adds that some of his teammates who were grant-in-aid players likely played less than him, and yet they are class members. He argues “it is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation” when that player’s teammate was “in the same game.” Since whether a college athlete can earn NIL compensation is unrelated to whether that athlete is on athletic scholarship, among other possible student athlete distinctions that have no bearing to NIL, Kasemervisz maintains the settlement is deficiently constructed.

To remedy this defect, Kasemervisz proposes the class definition be expanded to include Power 5 athletes who “actively participated” and thus contributed to the broadcast revenue. He suggests one “easily verifiable measure” would be to consider presence on a roster. Another option, he notes, would be to weigh games played/snap count.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234825408/

Seems to have a good point from my perspective. Of course the more people trying to get paid, the less there is to go around. Every walk-on football player getting a share means athletes in other sports or scholarship football players are getting less.

[dabigv13]

A Stanford preferred walk-on WR, David Kasemervisz, also submitted an objection to the House settlement. 

Kasemervisz, a wide receiver and special teams player over the last four seasons, objects to the settlement limiting recovery to full grant-in-aid players as part of the “settlement football and men’s basketball class.” That class covers Power Five basketball and football players who competed from 2016 to 2024. Kasemervisz was a preferred walk-on, meaning he didn’t have to try out for the team. However, Kasemervisz notes, he “did not receive the same financial benefits” as a grant-in-aid player.

Kasemervisz emphasizes that everything about his experience playing football at Stanford, including time spent on practices, training, attending meetings and satisfying athletic and academic standards, resembled the experiences of his teammates. He played in games that were broadcast on TV and his NIL was used.

Kasemervisz adds that some of his teammates who were grant-in-aid players likely played less than him, and yet they are class members. He argues “it is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation” when that player’s teammate was “in the same game.” Since whether a college athlete can earn NIL compensation is unrelated to whether that athlete is on athletic scholarship, among other possible student athlete distinctions that have no bearing to NIL, Kasemervisz maintains the settlement is deficiently constructed.

To remedy this defect, Kasemervisz proposes the class definition be expanded to include Power 5 athletes who “actively participated” and thus contributed to the broadcast revenue. He suggests one “easily verifiable measure” would be to consider presence on a roster. Another option, he notes, would be to weigh games played/snap count.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234825408/

Seems to have a good point from my perspective. Of course the more people trying to get paid, the less there is to go around. Every walk-on football player getting a share means athletes in other sports or scholarship football players are getting less.

[BostonCard]

the fallout on other sports if 95% of the payout goes to football and basketball. Also called out are the fallacy of NIL and the hypocrisy of amateurism as applied to collegiate tennis players.

Seems like they have a point; if you are completely dismantling amateurism by paying athletes directly, then you should let tennis players (and other athletes) participate in collegiate athletics at the same time as they take professional money.

And yes, most of the House settlement money would go to football and basketball players.  Would be interesting to see if there are Title IX challenges to that.  It also potentially allows schools who don’t have football teams and are willing to find a funding stream for House revenue sharing to dominate in non-football sports.

BC

[BostonCard]

the fallout on other sports if 95% of the payout goes to football and basketball. Also called out are the fallacy of NIL and the hypocrisy of amateurism as applied to collegiate tennis players.

Seems like they have a point; if you are completely dismantling amateurism by paying athletes directly, then you should let tennis players (and other athletes) participate in collegiate athletics at the same time as they take professional money.

And yes, most of the House settlement money would go to football and basketball players.  Would be interesting to see if there are Title IX challenges to that.  It also potentially allows schools who don’t have football teams and are willing to find a funding stream for House revenue sharing to dominate in non-football sports.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

Would be interesting to see if there are Title IX challenges to that.  It also potentially allows schools who don’t have football teams and are willing to find a funding stream for House revenue sharing to dominate in non-football sports.

BC

The Department of Education in the prior administration said that Title IX did apply to the proposed House settlement. The current administration may reverse that position.

https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-ins...ement.html

[Spiny_Norman]

Would be interesting to see if there are Title IX challenges to that.  It also potentially allows schools who don’t have football teams and are willing to find a funding stream for House revenue sharing to dominate in non-football sports.

BC

The Department of Education in the prior administration said that Title IX did apply to the proposed House settlement. The current administration may reverse that position.

https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-ins...ement.html

[82lsju]

some info on the size of the payments to swimmers (yes it is a small number of datapoints)

https://swimswam.com/most-swimmers-see-e...on%20Award.

[82lsju]

some info on the size of the payments to swimmers (yes it is a small number of datapoints)

https://swimswam.com/most-swimmers-see-e...on%20Award.

[chrisk]

One condition I had not heard/realized until today is that under the House settlement, any third-party NIL payments (from collectives or others) must be submitted to a clearinghouse for review. Any amount of the payment deemed to be above market value will be charged against the school's $20.5 million House cap. Interesting enforcement problem since colleges seem to work around any regulations that are put in place.

Different schools are coming up with different ways to fund the $20.5 million. Indiana is laying off 25 AD staffers.
Northwestern is hoping to generate significant revenue from events at its new $850 million stadium.
In general, Big 10 schools think that conference distributions will outpace the House cap over time.

[chrisk]

One condition I had not heard/realized until today is that under the House settlement, any third-party NIL payments (from collectives or others) must be submitted to a clearinghouse for review. Any amount of the payment deemed to be above market value will be charged against the school's $20.5 million House cap. Interesting enforcement problem since colleges seem to work around any regulations that are put in place.

Different schools are coming up with different ways to fund the $20.5 million. Indiana is laying off 25 AD staffers.
Northwestern is hoping to generate significant revenue from events at its new $850 million stadium.
In general, Big 10 schools think that conference distributions will outpace the House cap over time.

[M T]

If the House payout limit was at a level that every school could make, then there would be little advantage for the University of Alabama over Birmingham Southern.  Yeah, if Title IX is ignored for this, then some schools would pay only for football and no other sport, while other schools would drop football and pay for players for other sports.  But, of course, the full House payment is beyond most schools.  The wealthy get wealthier and the divide gets greater.

If Title IX applies (I do believe the courts will decide that, at least eventually.  Unless, of course, Title IX is rewritten by this Congress.), does this mean 50% for women?  That would be a big deal.

There's also the issue of years of payout to a single player by a single school.  Come play, and we'll redshirt you just so you can get more money; then you'll have an injury year...   Of course the player could double-cross them by transferring without ever playing for them.

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

Here's an interesting idea.... If school A can't pay the player enough across 4 years, maybe they can pay in year 1 and have an agreement for the player to transfer to school B for the next year, back and forth.  Imagine Stanford & Cal in a Player Lease arrangement like that.   
Maybe (in theory) BigU could get LittleU to take the player for Freshman year and redshirt him, but pay him out of their $20M (donated by BigU supporters), then he transfers to BigU and gets a big share of the pot, having already been paid a lot before he ever puts on a BigU uniform.

[M T]

If the House payout limit was at a level that every school could make, then there would be little advantage for the University of Alabama over Birmingham Southern.  Yeah, if Title IX is ignored for this, then some schools would pay only for football and no other sport, while other schools would drop football and pay for players for other sports.  But, of course, the full House payment is beyond most schools.  The wealthy get wealthier and the divide gets greater.

If Title IX applies (I do believe the courts will decide that, at least eventually.  Unless, of course, Title IX is rewritten by this Congress.), does this mean 50% for women?  That would be a big deal.

There's also the issue of years of payout to a single player by a single school.  Come play, and we'll redshirt you just so you can get more money; then you'll have an injury year...   Of course the player could double-cross them by transferring without ever playing for them.

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

Here's an interesting idea.... If school A can't pay the player enough across 4 years, maybe they can pay in year 1 and have an agreement for the player to transfer to school B for the next year, back and forth.  Imagine Stanford & Cal in a Player Lease arrangement like that.   
Maybe (in theory) BigU could get LittleU to take the player for Freshman year and redshirt him, but pay him out of their $20M (donated by BigU supporters), then he transfers to BigU and gets a big share of the pot, having already been paid a lot before he ever puts on a BigU uniform.

[BostonCard]

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

This is where the transparency and having a database helps.  I work in an industry where there is also concern about funneling excessive money ostensibly for legitimate business purposes as an inducement, and whenever I enter into a contract with a consultant, it has to be reviewed by our compliance office and the value has to be compared to a fair market value table.  If the negotiated rate comes in outside of the FMV range, then I have to justify the variance.  Sometimes it's easy because the consultant has very specific knowledge not available elsewhere and the published FMV rate doesn't capture their value, and the scope of work documents that they are one of the few or the only person who can fulfill the criteria; sometimes the consultant will produce documentation that they've entered into similar industry contracts.  Other times I'll have to ask the consultant to modify their rates and if they are unwilling to then tell them we can't sign the agreement and look elsewhere.  It is clunky and a pain, but was born out of past abuses where contracts were entered with excessive values that didn't serve a legitimate business purpose were used as a cover for illegitimate purposes.

As I understand it, under the House agreement this will be handled by an independent committee, which will likely look at similar contracts elsewhere to decide if the player is receiving fair market value.  I don't think it will be a problem if an ESPN ad gets paid within a certain range, which may be quite broad, but if ESPN ads are going for $1M - $2M, and a star QB gets a $5M contract to film an ad for the Longhorn Network (as an example) that might be flagged as excessive.

BC

[BostonCard]

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

This is where the transparency and having a database helps.  I work in an industry where there is also concern about funneling excessive money ostensibly for legitimate business purposes as an inducement, and whenever I enter into a contract with a consultant, it has to be reviewed by our compliance office and the value has to be compared to a fair market value table.  If the negotiated rate comes in outside of the FMV range, then I have to justify the variance.  Sometimes it's easy because the consultant has very specific knowledge not available elsewhere and the published FMV rate doesn't capture their value, and the scope of work documents that they are one of the few or the only person who can fulfill the criteria; sometimes the consultant will produce documentation that they've entered into similar industry contracts.  Other times I'll have to ask the consultant to modify their rates and if they are unwilling to then tell them we can't sign the agreement and look elsewhere.  It is clunky and a pain, but was born out of past abuses where contracts were entered with excessive values that didn't serve a legitimate business purpose were used as a cover for illegitimate purposes.

As I understand it, under the House agreement this will be handled by an independent committee, which will likely look at similar contracts elsewhere to decide if the player is receiving fair market value.  I don't think it will be a problem if an ESPN ad gets paid within a certain range, which may be quite broad, but if ESPN ads are going for $1M - $2M, and a star QB gets a $5M contract to film an ad for the Longhorn Network (as an example) that might be flagged as excessive.

BC

[martyup]

Start the countdown to when news breaks that the independent committee has been bribed.

[martyup]

Start the countdown to when news breaks that the independent committee has been bribed.