The NCAA’s Division I Council announced a proposal in June that, if adopted in October, would change sports betting rules to permit student-athletes and staff members to bet on professional sports.
Read More
Under the proposal, colleges for the first time would be able to pay student-athletes directly for their name, image and likeness rights.
Read More
When a high-profile college athlete puts fans in the seats and drives up sports revenue at their universities, does it primarily benefit them or their schools? A Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month in Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association examined that question and could put an end to the idea of […]
Read More
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled the National Collegiate Athletic Association couldn’t prohibit athletes on teams at member schools from receiving certain education-related compensation. In affirming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in NCAA, et al. v. Alston, et al., college athletes were given the green light to get paid for their names, images and likenesses. By June 30, the NCAA had released an interim NIL policy, providing general guidelines as to how universities and athletes could approach NIL business ventures while also complying with existing NCAA bylaws prohibiting “pay-for-play” arrangements.
Read More
The lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges the Indianapolis-based NCAA violates U.S. antitrust laws with how its redshirt rule covers playing time for athletes during five seasons of eligibility.
While the settlement agreement is widely viewed as a win for student athletes, it also highlights murky legal terrain for schools that may violate immigration law if they compensate international student-athletes.
The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.
The Indianapolis-based NCAA is considering a proposal that would allow athletes and staff members to bet on professional sports while shifting its enforcement efforts to college sports betting and “behaviors that directly impact game integrity.”
The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable.
The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue.
The document would bind institutions to enforcement policies even if their state laws are contradictory and would require schools to waive their right to pursue legal challenges against the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission.
Proposed roster caps have prevented U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken from approving a $2.78 billion settlement, which is designed to allow schools to pay players directly beginning later this year.
The lawsuit, which included 16 total players who played before June 16, 2016, claimed that the NCAA had enriched itself by utilizing their names, images and likenesses to promote its men’s basketball tournament.
The judge overseeing the rewriting of the college sports rulebook threw a potentially deal-wrecking roadblock into the mix Wednesday, insisting parties in the antitrust lawsuit redo the part of the proposed settlement.
The NCAA passed rules Monday that would upend decades of precedent by allowing colleges to pay their athletes per terms of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement expected to go into effect this summer.
The landmark $2.8 billion settlement that will reach into every corner of college athletics in the months ahead had its final hearing Monday, at which athletes said the sprawling plan was confusing and undervalued them, while attorneys said they were concerned about the impacts on campuses across the country.
Jeremy Pruitt is suing the Indianapolis-based NCAA for $100 million for lost and future wages.
The big news now is about a major settlement that, if approved, will provide athletes back pay for uncompensated use of their name, image and likeness. How will Title IX factor in?
Charlie Baker, president of the Indianapolis-based NCAA, said the organization would “take necessary steps to align NCAA policy in the coming days, subject to further guidance from the administration.”
NCAA President Charlie Baker is banking on the momentum college sports appears to be gaining since preliminary approval of the House settlement, which calls for schools to pay players directly for use of their name, image and likeness.
The athletes whose lawsuit against the Indianapolis-based NCAA is primed to pave the way for schools to pay them directly also want a players’ association to represent them in the complex contract negotiations that have overtaken the sport.
A judge granted preliminary approval Monday to the $2.78 billion legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools to pay players.
The new language and replacing of the hazily defined “booster,” which has played a big role in the Indianapolis-based NCAA’s rulebook for decades, is designed to better outline which sort of deals will come under scrutiny under the new rules.
A federal judge on Thursday probed the terms of a proposed $2.78 billion settlement of antitrust lawsuits against the Indianapolis-based NCAA and major conferences and revealed a potential snag in the deal, questioning whether payments to college athletes from booster-funded organizations should be restricted.