House -v- NCAA Settlement (Key Points for clarity and request for OTF)

[Bevo92]

A brief summary from ChatGPT outlining key elements of the House -v- NCAA Settlement.   This ruling goes into effect on July 1, 2025 and all universities must comply for this upcoming school year.  In other words, if a university has total financial commitments for its athletes that exceed $20.5m across all sports (yes, Texas Tech, I'm talking about you with your $1m annual payment to a single pitcher in Canaday plus your extreme overpayments in the transfer portal), their total payments must be adjusted this summer in order to be in compliance.  Otherwise, lack of compliance appears to create opening for massive penalties and other punitive actions.  Also, it's important to note the ruling does not provide any contractual relief or carve-out provisions that would contractually allow universities to revise signed agreements.  Seems to be a Catch-22.  It's easy to see all of this quickly leading back into the courtroom as players will understandably feel they have an enforceable contract that cannot simply be terminated or adjusted without offsetting remedies to the player being harmed financially.  

Question for @Bobby Burton and @Gerry Hamilton.  Will you have your expert back on OTF in the near future that you had on the show a month or two ago re: the settlement impacts?  I can't recall the guy's name but I seem to recall Bobby made the connection in the spring and he answered a lot of questions in advance of the final ruling coming out.  Would be great to get a credible perspective on how this all will unfold for Texas and others.  

I feel good knowing how CDC is prepared and proactive to address things like this.  Seems like UT will likely benefit more than most, given legitimate NIL upside for players in all sports beyond the $20.5m cap.  

Hook em!! 🧡🐂🤘

Edited 3 hours ago by Bevo92

[Bevo92]

I know this has been getting talked about since last fall when the initial ruling came out, but now that it's official, this is going to be fascinating to watch unfold.  Given the effective date of July 1, 2025, there is no grace period it appears.  It is IMMEDIATELY in effect this school year regardless of what NIL agreements schools have with their players going into the 2025/2026 school year.  Is that others' understanding as well?  How will universities have the contractual right to revise or even terminate agreements that are binding contracts with its players?  

[Bobby Burton]

I will see if we can get one of a couple different people on. 

[Bevo92]

38 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

I will see if we can get one of a couple different people on. 

Thanks Bobby.  Appreciate how on top of all this you and your team are.  Hook em!! 🐂🤘🏼🧡

[Bevo92]

With Greg Sankey and Pete Bevacqua (ND AD) meeting with Trump yesterday, it will be interesting to see if there's federal anti-trust legislation or some type of federal protections put in place that would give universities and this new College Sports Commission the protections and authority they need to support  this new proposed financial structure with caps as outlined.  Otherwise, the lawsuits are likely to be out of control this fall between title IX and any player claiming they are being harmed financially as a result of the new rules.  

[Bevo92]

Ok, as I'm reading more on the terms of the House -v- NCAA, a few additional points I think I now understand.  Today is my first day back from vacation so I'm catching up a bit on my daily OTF.  lol.  

A few points for additional clarity.  Gerry or Bobby, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything here:

1) Any NIL deal signed under contract prior to last Friday night at midnight will not be challenged.  Those deals are effective and in place and they do not count against the $20.5m cap because they are from the collective and not from the school.  Is that correct?  So theoretically, the team currently could have $25m worth of contracts in place with the NIL and all of those are still in effect IN ADDITION to the fact that the University can now begin paying an the $20.5m for this upcoming school year.  That is different than what I originally understood but it makes sense as a bridge to the future.  For Canaday as an example, since she signed her NIL last Friday for another $1m next year from the collective, it's good and enforceable and won't conflict with the payments from the university.

2) All new NIL deals (whether it's from collectives or from companies directly) will have to be submitted into the review / approval process for Deloitte to administer and approve if the total value exceeds $600.  So for Arch, his Redbull contract won't get reviewed that he's already executed; however if his next deal is ready to be signed this week, he'll need sign-off by the new sports commission and Deloitte before he can officially execute the agreement and receive payment. 

3) This seems to be a clear case of WTF when it comes to Deloitte determining 'market value' for these NIL deals.  Arch signing a $5m deal with Rolex may be easier to approve than a $1m deal with Ray's Used Cars for weekly 11p commercial spot.  Btw, that $1m from Ray's Used Cars probably got funded from a booster and how is Deloitte going to make that discovery to realize the NIL payor is actually just the middle man and the billion dollar booster is the true funding source?  How in the heck will Deloitte have any chance of actually maintaining some kind of market integrity?  What does that even mean to be in compliance?  

[Lnghrn]

50 minutes ago, Bevo92 said:

Ok, as I'm reading more on the terms of the House -v- NCAA, a few additional points I think I now understand.  Today is my first day back from vacation so I'm catching up a bit on my daily OTF.  lol.  

A few points for additional clarity.  Gerry or Bobby, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything here:

1) Any NIL deal signed under contract prior to last Friday night at midnight will not be challenged.  Those deals are effective and in place and they do not count against the $20.5m cap because they are from the collective and not from the school.  Is that correct?  So theoretically, the team currently could have $25m worth of contracts in place with the NIL and all of those are still in effect IN ADDITION to the fact that the University can now begin paying an the $20.5m for this upcoming school year.  That is different than what I originally understood but it makes sense as a bridge to the future.  For Canaday as an example, since she signed her NIL last Friday for another $1m next year from the collective, it's good and enforceable and won't conflict with the payments from the university.

2) All new NIL deals (whether it's from collectives or from companies directly) will have to be submitted into the review / approval process for Deloitte to administer and approve if the total value exceeds $600.  So for Arch, his Redbull contract won't get reviewed that he's already executed; however if his next deal is ready to be signed this week, he'll need sign-off by the new sports commission and Deloitte before he can officially execute the agreement and receive payment. 

3) This seems to be a clear case of WTF when it comes to Deloitte determining 'market value' for these NIL deals.  Arch signing a $5m deal with Rolex may be easier to approve than a $1m deal with Ray's Used Cars for weekly 11p commercial spot.  Btw, that $1m from Ray's Used Cars probably got funded from a booster and how is Deloitte going to make that discovery to realize the NIL payor is actually just the middle man and the billion dollar booster is the true funding source?  How in the heck will Deloitte have any chance of actually maintaining some kind of market integrity?  What does that even mean to be in compliance?  

Good question on #3