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
As March Madness was wrapping up in Indianapolis, United States Supreme Court justices heard oral argument in a monumental compensation case that sports law experts anticipate will forever change the landscape of college athletics — including the nation’s most beloved and profitable college basketball competition.
Read More
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.
The NCAA and the five power conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference, also known as the “Power 5 Conferences”) have been steadily working to resolve a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA related to revenue sharing with student athletes and name, image and likeness (NIL) rules.
College sports leaders believe they have found a way through a massive antitrust settlement to finally separate “true NIL” for athletes from what they say is booster-funded pay-for-play.
Thousands of former college athletes will be eligible for payments ranging from a few dollars to more than a million under the $2.78 billion antitrust settlement agreed to by the NCAA and five power conferences.
An attorney for the defendants tells The Associated Press the full settlement agreement of antitrust lawsuits involving the NCAA and college sports’ wealthiest conferences is expected to be filed with a federal court by Friday.
College athletes whose efforts primarily benefit their schools might qualify as employees deserving of pay under federal wage-and-hour laws, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday in a setback to the NCAA.
The NCAA Division I council voted to remove use of cannabis products from the banned drug class for championships and postseason participation in football.