House Settlement

[Caver60]

Wanted to discuss this for a better understanding of the implications for Texas athletics but football in particular.

NIL in its current form has been a huge "win" for Texas. I'd like to understand better what the landscape looks like after House, and if the competitive advantages that Texas has seen with NIL will continue after the settlement. I'm less interested in how this affects other schools than in specifically how it will affect Texas.

The basics as I understand them:

• Colleges can share revenue with athletes (capped at $21M)
• Schools can engage directly with athletes on NIL deals (previously, schools could not do this)
• Some sort of NIL enforcement agency comes into play
• Roster size may change
• Scholarship limits may change
• Title IX is still in effect across all athletics
• There may be back pay for current and former athletes

Immediate questions:

• Where does the $21M come from? Is this for each university to figure out? Texas and other wealthy schools might pull that from athletic departments alone. Other schools would have to pull from their general budgets to hand out that much money to athletes. Some schools simply won't have any money to hand out at all.
• Schools can negotiate NIL deals with athletes. Cool. What happens to existing collectives?
• NIL enforcement. Will this be the NCAA? Is this their try to get back in on the action and remain relevant?

I've enjoyed living in a world these past few years where traditional bag men have been marginalized. Love it that Texas athletics can bring immense resources of its donor base to bear on the success of athletes and teams that we all follow. How would this settlement (if it stands) change this new world that we are living successfully in? 

I know it's not clear yet, but I'd like to hear thoughts. And if there is something like this pinned somewhere, my apologies and link me to it.

Hook 'Em

[camridleyfan]

The $21M comes from the tv contracts, each university can set their own percentage on how much they want to give each sport.  Every school I believe in P5 will have access to around 20 million. 

Existing collectives will essentially mostly go away. Because 501c is not going to be allowed

Boosters or sponsors of the university are not allowed to generate 3rd party NIL deals unless they are verified by deloitte to be of market value (this will likely be challenged in court immediately)

NCAA is outsourcing NIL regulation to deloitte

But a non sponsor of the university does not have to get the deal reviewed.

Schools right now are trying to finish any NIL deals and frontload contracts pre april 7th as those will be honored.

 

Side note;  The whole house v ncaa case is 100% going to be challenged immediately because the players are not unionized and they did not agree to these terms (they cant be under ncaa).  This may hinder some or all provisions of the settlement from going into effect.  This will get fixed when P5 + some GO5 break off from the NCAA in a couple of years then the players can unionize.

 

If I missed one of your questions let me know

[Itsamystery]

It appears this is just one more step on a journey with no real end in sight. Years of litigation and redefining college athletics in the making, across all sports to follow. I am all for players earning, but would have loved a well thought out solution presented by a governing body to where we are today. The changes are just beginning.

[camridleyfan]

19 minutes ago, Itsamystery said:

It appears this is just one more step on a journey with no real end in sight. Years of litigation and redefining college athletics in the making, across all sports to follow. I am all for players earning, but would have loved a well thought out solution presented by a governing body to where we are today. The changes are just beginning.

Once the break off occurs everything will get better, double tv revenue, additional 85 mens scholarships (baseball biggest winners?) , if you can restrict transfer portal entries and exits to graduates only or have to sit out a year you will fix 99.9% of problems that currently exist.  The only thing holding all this back is the NCAA , but they will lose control of football in next 3-5 years.

[Bobby Burton]

The $20mm is across all sports.

Football will be roughly $15mm.

Some collectives will disappear but not all. Texas will continue to have an outside collective designed to find deals for players.

The bigger issues here are around the edges.

For example, what will be “fair market value” of a player? Will that definition hold up in court (most believe it will not).

What happens when and if the players organize?

The House Settlement is yet another band aid on a bullet hole. It’s a start but it’s nowhere near finished. 

[bierce]

2 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

The $20mm is across all sports.

Football will be roughly $15mm.

Some collectives will disappear but not all. Texas will continue to have an outside collective designed to find deals for players.

The bigger issues here are around the edges.

For example, what will be “fair market value” of a player? Will that definition hold up in court (most believe it will not).

What happens when and if the players organize?

The House Settlement is yet another band aid on a bullet hole. It’s a start but it’s nowhere near finished. 

[Jordan91]

3 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

The $20mm is across all sports.

Football will be roughly $15mm.

Some collectives will disappear but not all. Texas will continue to have an outside collective designed to find deals for players.

The bigger issues here are around the edges.

For example, what will be “fair market value” of a player? Will that definition hold up in court (most believe it will not).

What happens when and if the players organize?

The House Settlement is yet another band aid on a bullet hole. It’s a start but it’s nowhere near finished. 

It’s going to immediately be challenged in court. 

[drag worm]

Back pay is a slippery slope. 

[TTown]

Yeah not all Collectives are going away believe that. Still many twists and turns before all is said and done. Lawyers about to make a fortune challenging aspects of this believe that too.

[harveycmd]

Very little chance the "clearing house" arrangement withstands judicial scrutiny. Since when has "fair market value" ever been legally enforceable in a market economy? Is there any kind of cap or third party judge for marketing deals in any industry? Clearly violates the basic legal precedent.

[Hashtag]

"Fair market value" is great theoretically but you can't tell people or dictate a players value, SCOTUS already said that. 


If Donor X thinks that Player Y at his school Z is worth 2 million dollar NIL deal there is no way they tell that player he cannot get the deal because "fair market value"