The House Settlement has been approved
- Thread starter Duke Humphrey
- Start date
"The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years."
More like the End of the Beginning
House v. NCAA settlement fundamentally alters college athletics, but don't expect it to bring stability
Chaos has become the status quo in college athletics over the last decade, and the landmark settlement won't change that
www.cbssports.com
Yeah. A clearinghouse is going to bring all this spending under control. Good luck with that.
This is a good thing. All NIL deals will be just that Name Image and likeness. All deals over 600 must be submitted and cleared by said clearinghouse. No more collectives doing phony pay for play. This is a better concept for us on many levels.
It certainly is a much better concept. “Concept” being the key word. Unfortunately, the concept is not going to match the eventual reality.
Really gotta feel for the boosters on this whole deal. They’re still going to have to pay the same amount of money, but no longer get the tax write-off.
I wish that “when the new clearinghouse rejects its first NIL deal” could be entered as a cook time setting for popcorn in my microwave.
Yes, but the amount just went up, exponentially.
If a player already expects to receive over $1 MM a year in revenue sharing and endorsement money, just how much under the table money will it take to keep him happy?
And what about the players who can't get the big endorsement deals? They're going to want enough money to keep them in the same neighborhood as their teammates.
No system is perfect, but this one will ar least be entertaining.
My only question is, what about any current athletes who opted out of the settlement? I can only find info on former athletes who opted out.
Any current athletes who opted out will have, presumably, retained the right to bring an anti-trust suit if their NIL deal is rejected. They could probably bring a suit on July 1, if their current deal with a collective is terminated.
Bama still saying you can't subpoena any private bank records. Georgia as well. Ohio State. And more.
From Grok:
1. Back-Pay Damages ($2.8 Billion):
• Purpose: Compensates former and current Division I athletes who competed between June 15, 2016, and September 15, 2024, for lost opportunities to earn money from NIL and other revenue due to NCAA restrictions.
• Distribution: The $2.8 billion will be paid over 10 years, with the NCAA covering approximately $1.2 billion (41%) from reserves, insurance, and budget cuts. Power Five conferences will contribute about 24%, non-Power Five conferences (Group of Five) 10%, FCS schools 13%, and Division I schools without football 12%.
• Payout Structure:
• Power Five football and men’s basketball players are expected to receive the largest payouts, averaging around $135,000 each.
• Power Five women’s basketball players may receive about $35,000 on average.
• Other Division I athletes (e.g., swimmers, soccer players) could receive smaller amounts, ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, with some as low as a few dollars. The highest individual payout could reach $1.85 million.
• Eligibility and Claims: Over 88,000 former athletes have already filed claims. The deadline to submit claims was January 31, 2025. Athletes were notified via email or postcard by the settlement administrator, and claims could be submitted through www.collegeathletecompensation.com.
2. Revenue-Sharing Model:
• New Framework: Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, schools in the Power Four conferences (formerly Power Five, after the Pac-12’s reduction) and others opting in can share up to 22% of their average athletic media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorship revenue with athletes, capped at approximately $20.5 million annually per school (adjusted over time). This is permissive, meaning schools can choose to pay less or none.
• Direct Payments: For the first time, schools can pay athletes directly for their NIL, moving away from the NCAA’s traditional amateurism model. This is a significant shift from the previous system where NIL deals were primarily handled by third-party collectives.
• Impact: This could result in athletes, especially in high-revenue sports like football and basketball, receiving substantial payments, with some star athletes potentially earning six-figure sums annually.
3. NIL Oversight and Clearinghouse:
• Regulation: To prevent “pay-for-play” deals disguised as NIL agreements, all NIL deals worth $600 or more must be reported and reviewed by a third-party clearinghouse (operated by Deloitte) to ensure they reflect fair market value. This applies to deals with “associated entities or individuals” (e.g., boosters or collectives closely tied to schools).
• Enforcement: Neutral arbitrators, not the NCAA, will determine if deals violate rules against pay-for-play or recruiting inducements. This addresses concerns raised by Judge Wilken about overly broad restrictions on boosters in the original settlement.
4. Roster Limits and Scholarship Changes:
• Scholarship Caps Removed: The settlement eliminates limits on athletic scholarships, allowing schools to offer partial or full scholarships to more athletes, though these count toward the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap (up to $2.5 million for scholarships).
• Roster Limits: The NCAA will set roster size limits for sports, replacing scholarship caps. For example, football rosters might shrink from 120 players to 100, but all could receive scholarships. Athletes at risk of losing roster spots due to these limits can receive “legacied status” to retain their eligibility.
• Impact: This could reduce opportunities for walk-on athletes but increase scholarship access for others. Critics argue it may harm smaller sports programs.
5. Additional Benefits:
• Athletes will gain access to expanded benefits, including mental health resources, nutrition support, life skills development, and extended medical coverage after their playing careers end.
• These benefits aim to modernize support for student-athletes beyond traditional scholarships (tuition, room, board, and books)
1. Back-Pay Damages ($2.8 Billion):
• Purpose: Compensates former and current Division I athletes who competed between June 15, 2016, and September 15, 2024, for lost opportunities to earn money from NIL and other revenue due to NCAA restrictions.
• Distribution: The $2.8 billion will be paid over 10 years, with the NCAA covering approximately $1.2 billion (41%) from reserves, insurance, and budget cuts. Power Five conferences will contribute about 24%, non-Power Five conferences (Group of Five) 10%, FCS schools 13%, and Division I schools without football 12%.
• Payout Structure:
• Power Five football and men’s basketball players are expected to receive the largest payouts, averaging around $135,000 each.
• Power Five women’s basketball players may receive about $35,000 on average.
• Other Division I athletes (e.g., swimmers, soccer players) could receive smaller amounts, ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, with some as low as a few dollars. The highest individual payout could reach $1.85 million.
• Eligibility and Claims: Over 88,000 former athletes have already filed claims. The deadline to submit claims was January 31, 2025. Athletes were notified via email or postcard by the settlement administrator, and claims could be submitted through www.collegeathletecompensation.com.
2. Revenue-Sharing Model:
• New Framework: Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, schools in the Power Four conferences (formerly Power Five, after the Pac-12’s reduction) and others opting in can share up to 22% of their average athletic media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorship revenue with athletes, capped at approximately $20.5 million annually per school (adjusted over time). This is permissive, meaning schools can choose to pay less or none.
• Direct Payments: For the first time, schools can pay athletes directly for their NIL, moving away from the NCAA’s traditional amateurism model. This is a significant shift from the previous system where NIL deals were primarily handled by third-party collectives.
• Impact: This could result in athletes, especially in high-revenue sports like football and basketball, receiving substantial payments, with some star athletes potentially earning six-figure sums annually.
3. NIL Oversight and Clearinghouse:
• Regulation: To prevent “pay-for-play” deals disguised as NIL agreements, all NIL deals worth $600 or more must be reported and reviewed by a third-party clearinghouse (operated by Deloitte) to ensure they reflect fair market value. This applies to deals with “associated entities or individuals” (e.g., boosters or collectives closely tied to schools).
• Enforcement: Neutral arbitrators, not the NCAA, will determine if deals violate rules against pay-for-play or recruiting inducements. This addresses concerns raised by Judge Wilken about overly broad restrictions on boosters in the original settlement.
4. Roster Limits and Scholarship Changes:
• Scholarship Caps Removed: The settlement eliminates limits on athletic scholarships, allowing schools to offer partial or full scholarships to more athletes, though these count toward the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap (up to $2.5 million for scholarships).
• Roster Limits: The NCAA will set roster size limits for sports, replacing scholarship caps. For example, football rosters might shrink from 120 players to 100, but all could receive scholarships. Athletes at risk of losing roster spots due to these limits can receive “legacied status” to retain their eligibility.
• Impact: This could reduce opportunities for walk-on athletes but increase scholarship access for others. Critics argue it may harm smaller sports programs.
5. Additional Benefits:
• Athletes will gain access to expanded benefits, including mental health resources, nutrition support, life skills development, and extended medical coverage after their playing careers end.
• These benefits aim to modernize support for student-athletes beyond traditional scholarships (tuition, room, board, and books)
You've used that term here before. I don't think you literally mean "private bank." "Slush fund" perhaps?
I can see it already:
Alabama player gets $2MM NIL deal with PornHub-APPROVED by clearinghouse
State player gets $25K NIL deal with CAT and the clearinghouse denies it because they believe the name is a cooter reference
Alabama player gets $2MM NIL deal with PornHub-APPROVED by clearinghouse
State player gets $25K NIL deal with CAT and the clearinghouse denies it because they believe the name is a cooter reference
What's required to subpoena bank accounts. State government? In Alabama?
Has not happened yet in over 60 years.
Yeah OLF podcast talked briefly about the settlement a few weeks ago. What I heard Charlie say, is there will be new lawsuits once the Clearinghouse rejects a few nil deals. Current or new deals.
I hope the House settlement/clearinghouse works. I hope we can some decorum and spirit of fair competition come out of this.... if not... I'd say it's 100% over. As far as reasonably fair and competitive sport.
I hope the House settlement/clearinghouse works. I hope we can some decorum and spirit of fair competition come out of this.... if not... I'd say it's 100% over. As far as reasonably fair and competitive sport.
The federal DOJ (US Attorneys office), many federal agencies and state and local law enforcement can for sure subpoena your bank account and get any years and every thing in your name. Just requires an investigation to be open.What's required to subpoena bank accounts. State government? In Alabama?
Can the College Sports Comission do that? I don't think so.
Last edited:
Happy to know that the Feds now can and will as part of the house settlement. Maybe that's why old Saint Nick was up on the hill being so friendly
I'm NOT saying the Feds can do that through the house settlement. However if they have a criminal or civil investigation within their agency ....
A court can definitely issue a subpoena for bank records. The NCAA does not have the power, although under the old system it could penalize member institutions and boosters for failing to cooperate with an investigation.What's required to subpoena bank accounts. State government? In Alabama?
The bigger question is why anyone would be stupid enough to create incriminating records in the first place? The whole idea of establishing a literal bank to make secret, improper payments is asinine.
Last edited:
The athletes who opted into the settlement will not be able to sue. That's the whole point of a settlement. They have agreed to arbitration if they they want to challenge the rejection of their NIL deal.
If they lose the arbitration they can sue, but there is a high standard to show some type of misconduct or violation of legal standards by the arbiter.
Now, the athletes who opt out of the settlement can probably sue....but they will still need to show some type of value for their NIL deal. It would hard to argue they are being damaged because the NCAA won't allow a booster to give them free money.
Kylin Hill
What will stop the unlimited number of daily $599 deals from happening?
And, of course, the Title IX issue is still looming with respect to revenue sharing. I know Linda McMahon has said Title IX won't apply, but that just means the DOE will not force Title IX compliance. Probably won't take long for a group of female athletes to claim the distribution of revenue sharing is discriminatory.
That position has been debunked multiple times over. Revenue sharing vs revenue earning is an easy way to shoot that down.
Doesn’t mean they won’t try, though…