Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools
College sports is officially entering a new era. Amateurism is over and professionalism is (mostly) here. Athletes can officially get paid directly by their schools without a workaround involving boosters or a name, image, and likeness (NIL) collective. Instead of our usual format, the newsletter this week is focused on this monumental change.
Advertisement
But first, I want to thank everyone who voted in our survey last week about who you're rooting for in the NBA and NHL finals. Free Agent readership was surprisingly evenly split in both series. Shoutout to the fan who said "Seattle kid. Anyone but Thunder." You'll have your team soon, I'm sure. As for hockey, I was amused by this response: "I want Ron Desantis to have more Stanley Cups than Canada." Three down, 40 to go.
Locker Room Links
A New Era of College Sports
Late on Friday, a federal judge gave final approval to a settlement in House v. NCAA, bringing to an end three antitrust cases against the NCAA and power conferences. It's a huge change: Starting July 1, college sports will spend a decade (at least) in a revenue-sharing system, with schools directly paying athletes for their NIL. Next school year athletic departments will be allowed to pay a combined $20.5 million to athletes across all their sports, with the number rising in the future. (The NCAA and power conferences will also pay almost $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who, dating back to 2016, weren't allowed to sign NIL deals.)
Advertisement
I talked to Mit Winter, an NIL attorney at Kennyhertz Perry, about how all of this is going to work. Hopefully this answers all the questions you might have about the new system, although a lot of it is still in limbo. I've been following this closely and I still learned a lot from our conversation. If you have lingering questions, email me at freeagent@reason.com and I'll try to figure out an answer for you.
Q: With final approval of the House settlement, colleges will be able to directly pay athletes for the first time. Give us a brief breakdown of how these payments are going to work.
A: Looking forward for college athletics, schools will be able to directly pay their athletes NIL compensation. So they are actively entering into contracts now with their athletes that spell out, "All right, here's how much we are going to pay you for the use of your NIL in various ways." That's obviously a change from how things have worked in the past in college athletics where the cardinal rule was, "Schools, you cannot pay your athletes."
Q: But the athletes still aren't technically employees, so that's causing some other complications, right?
A: Correct, they're not currently considered employees. These agreements they're entering into with schools are just NIL licensing agreements. Sometimes they include a services component as well, where the athlete might make appearances or sign autographs or something like that.
Advertisement
Q: But there are some new restrictions on outside NIL deals with boosters?
A: In addition to now allowing schools to directly pay their athletes, the House settlement also contains some new rules around deals athletes can do with NIL collectives and boosters. Athletes will have to disclose to a new clearinghouse entity called the College Sports Commission all third-party NIL deals they do. The College Sports Commission is contracted with Deloitte to do this review process of all of the deals.
If an athlete submits a third-party NIL deal and it's determined that the deal is with an associated [to the school] entity or individual, then there's a couple of extra layers of review of that deal. First, the deal has to be for a valid business purpose. Once that determination is made, then the next overview Deloitte will be performing is, "Okay, is the amount being paid to the athlete within what's being called an appropriate range of compensation for the services being provided by this specific athlete?"
But if Deloitte determines either the deal's not for a valid business purpose, like they think it's just a "pay-for-play" booster deal in disguise, or if the amount of compensation being provided to the athlete is not within the appropriate range of compensation, then Deloitte will notify the College Sports Commission that, "Hey, there's a problem with this deal." Then at that point it's up to the College Sports Commission to say, "All right, athlete, you can go ahead and do this deal if you want to, but you might be ineligible to participate in college athletics."
Advertisement
Q: Some believe this might lead to the old ways of under-the-table payments and recruiting violations.
A: It's a definite possibility because the amount of NIL compensation that schools could pay their athletes is going to be capped at, for the first year, $20.5 million for the entire year for all of the school's athletes, so not just the football team. And there are some football teams making well over $20 million in NIL compensation from booster and collective deals for this upcoming season.
So you can see if you have a football team right now taking $30 million, and then in the future, the cap for all of the school's athletes is going to be $20.5 million, there's obviously a $10 million gap right there, that if you can't do it through legitimate deals, third-party NIL deals and Deloitte is shooting down all these third-party deals, that's when you might go back to under-the-table payments from boosters to win recruiting battles or keep a guy at a school.
Q: Talk to us about this from the conference level.
A: Every Division I school, no matter what your athletics revenue is, you're going to be able to pay [athletes] up to $20.5 million. That money can come from any source that the university can use to find that money. Obviously, it's going to be easier to come up with that money for some Division I schools than others. Big Ten and SEC schools might have the easiest time just because the amount of TV revenue those conferences receive and then distribute out to their members is higher than any other conference, including the Big 12 and the ACC. But schools, they're going to be heavily reliant on donors for sure, but then there are other potential strategies they're going to use.
Advertisement
There's a lot of talk about private equity or private capital that some schools might access. There are businesses out there that are very heavily focused now on helping schools generate revenue through different types of creative partnerships, so it's going to be all over the map in terms of how schools are trying to come up with this new $20.5 million. And then you'll have some schools that will cut staff. Some have already cut staff, including Oklahoma, who's an SEC school, obviously, so they've cut staff. You've had some schools announce they are dropping a few sports, like tennis programs have been dropped in some places, swim and dive teams. So it's going to vary from school to school on how they come up with this money.
Q: Now, back to the athletes themselves, there are no changes to the transfer system, right? Athletes are still kind of on these one-year contracts, with a fair amount of ability to move at will?
A: Yes, correct. The transfer rules are going to stay the same, they're not affected by the House settlement at all. Although schools and conferences would love to be able to put some more transfer restrictions back in place and they're hopeful that Congress will pass a law that gives them an antitrust exemption that would then allow them to put some of those transfer rules back in place because courts have held right now that those transfer rules violate antitrust law.
Some of the contracts that schools are entering into with their athletes, they have some provisions that are trying to prevent as much movement as there has been, like buyouts and clawbacks and things like that. [It] remains to be seen whether those will be effective or not in limiting movement, so we'll just have to see how that plays out.
Advertisement
Q: There are already some lawsuits challenging the current NCAA eligibility rules, but what lawsuits are coming next, or are already in play after the House settlement?
A: A big one's going to be Title IX. There will be a lot of Title IX lawsuits, because as we talked about earlier, [schools] will be able to pay out $20.5 million to their athletes, and most schools are planning on paying out, at least if you are a [Power Four] school with a football team, are paying out 75 percent to 80 percent of that $20 million to the football team, around 15 percent to the men's basketball team, maybe 5 percent to the women's basketball team, and then 5 percent to other sports, which might be softball, baseball, whatever other sport a school chooses—85 percent to 90 percent of that $20 million is going to go to male athletes. Some people think that's not in compliance with Title IX, other people think it is. It's a gray area right now, there's no black-and-white law. That will be litigated probably in lots of places and there will be probably lots of lawsuits filed against schools on that issue.
I also think we will see some litigation related to the salary cap, because it was not agreed to by a player's association where, like in pro sports, the salary caps and things like that are collectively bargained with a players association, which makes them exempt from antitrust law. But this salary cap in college athletics is not going to be exempt from antitrust law. So future college athletes coming into college athletics will be able to bring damages, lawsuits, challenging that salary cap, so I think we'll definitely see some of that.
I think we'll probably see some more employment litigation for determination that college athletes are employees. There's already one big case pending on that issue called the Johnson v. NCAA case in federal court. It said college athletes can be employees, it didn't say they are. It said, "They can, and here's the test to determine whether they are." That was an appellate court, it's now down at the trial court level to actually make that determination. But I definitely think we'll see some more of that litigation, especially now that you have the schools contracting with athletes. It potentially makes that employment argument stronger than it was before.
Advertisement
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Replay of the Week
Lots of great candidates this week that you've probably already seen, like the Tyrese Haliburton game-winner, a brawl in the Stanley Cup Finals, and perhaps the best home run robbery you'll ever see (the A's still lost). But here's a wild golf shot you probably missed (and that wasn't even the craziest golf shot this weekend).
That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, the UFL championship game featuring the D.C. Defenders against the Michigan Panthers (Saturday, 8 P.M., on FOX). Many are calling it the Jason Bowl due to my dual loyalties.
The post Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
14 minutes ago
Republican budget bill dismantles climate law passed by Democrats
WASHINGTON -- The sprawling Republican budget bill approved by the Senate Tuesday removes a proposed tax on solar and wind energy projects but quickly phases out tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable energy. The Senate approved the bill 51-50 as President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers move to dismantle the 2022 climate law passed by Democrats under former President Joe Biden. Vice President JD Vance broke a tie after three Republican senators voted no. The bill now moves to the House for final legislative approval. The excise tax on solar and wind generation projects was added to the Senate bill over the weekend, prompting bipartisan pushback from lawmakers as well as clean energy developers and advocates. The final bill removes the tax but mostly sticks with legislative language released late Friday night and would end incentives for clean energy sooner than a draft version unveiled two weeks ago. Democrats and environmental groups said the GOP plan would crush growth in the wind and solar industry and lead to a spike in Americans' utility bills. The measure jeopardizes hundreds of renewable energy projects slated to boost the nation's electric grid, they said. 'Despite limited improvements, this legislation undermines the very foundation of America's manufacturing comeback and global energy leadership,' said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. If the bill becomes law, 'families will face higher electric bills, factories will shut down, Americans will lose their jobs, and our electric grid will grow weaker,'' she said. The American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, applauded the bill's passage. 'This historic legislation will help usher in a new era of energy dominance by unlocking opportunities for investment, opening lease sales and expanding access to oil and natural gas development,'' said Mike Sommers, the group's president and CEO. While Democrats complained that the bill would make it harder to get renewable energy to the electric grid, Republicans said the measure represents historic savings for taxpayers and supports production of traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal, as well as nuclear power, increasing reliability. In a compromise approved overnight, the bill allows wind and solar projects that begin construction within a year of the law's enactment to get a full tax credit without a deadline for when the projects are 'placed in service,'' or plugged into the grid. Wind and solar projects that begin later must be placed in service by the end of 2027 to get a credit. The bill retains incentives for technologies such as advanced nuclear, geothermal and hydropower through 2032. Changes to the renewable energy language — including removal of the excise tax on wind and solar — were negotiated by a group of Republican senators, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Iowa Sens. Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley. Iowa is a top producer of wind power, while Murkowski is a longtime supporter of renewable energy as crucial for achieving energy independence, particularly for isolated rural communities in Alaska. Murkowski, who voted in favor of the final bill, called her decision-making process 'agonizing.' Changes that push back the timeline for terminating wind and solar credits mean that 'a good number' of Alaska projects would still qualify, she said. 'Again, it's not all we wanted. It could have been worse,' she told reporters Tuesday. Murkowski praised provisions calling for more oil lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas in Alaska and increased revenue sharing. Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the bill a 'massively destructive piece of legislation' that 'increases costs for everyone by walloping the health care system, making families go hungry and sending utility bills through the roof.' The bill 'saddles our children and grandchildren with trillions and trillions of dollars in debt — all to serve giant corporations, fossil fuel polluters and billionaire Republican megadonors who are already among the richest people on the planet,' Whitehouse said. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Senate Republican, hailed the bill for rescinding many elements of what he called the Biden administration's 'green new scam,' including electric vehicle tax credits that have allowed car owners to lower the purchase price of EVs by $7,500. The bill also blocks for 10 years a first-ever fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas production. Industry groups fiercely opposed the methane fee, which was authorized by Democrats in the 2022 climate law but never implemented. The GOP bill also increases oil and gas leases on public lands and revives coal leasing in Wyoming and other states. 'Today, the Senate moved President Trump's agenda forward,'' said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican who chairs the Senate environment committee. Clean energy advocates were deeply disappointed by the bill, which they argue undoes much of the climate law before it fully takes effect. 'By eliminating a number of clean energy incentives and slashing others, this bill represents a significant step backward for America's energy future,' said Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit that seeks to accelerate the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. 'Curtailing incentives for electricity generated from wind and solar power is particularly shortsighted'' and will raise energy prices for households and businesses and threaten reliability of the electric grid, Keohane said.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OKC Thunder's massive trade return named NBA's best in last decade
The Oklahoma City Thunder are on top of the NBA world after winning their first title in 2025. No doubt, much of that championship can be attributed to the brilliant trading of general manager Sam Presti. Presti has been at the helm of the franchise since 2007, and has overseen some massive changes during that time. Advertisement Perhaps no trade has had a bigger impact than Presti's trade of Paul George to the Los Angeles Clippers in 2019. The Thunder acquired George in the summer of 2017 to make up for the loss of Kevin Durant. George had a successful tenure with the Thunder, earning All-Star selections in both of his seasons. However, Presti decided to ship George out in the summer of 2019 for a massive haul that included franchise star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. In total, the Thunder received, Gilgeous-Alexander, Danilo Gallinari, Miami's 2021 unprotected first-round pick (Tre Mann), 2022 unprotected first-round pick (Jalen Williams), Miami's 2023 lottery-protected first-round pick (Jaime Jaquez Jr.), 2023 first-round swap (unexercised), 2024 unprotected first-round pick (Dillon Jones), 2025 first-round swap (No. 24, up from No. 30), and a 2026 unprotected first-round pick. Gilgeous-Alexander alone would've made this more than worth it, but add in Jalen Williams and all the other picks, and this is a massive haul. Advertisement Dan Favale of Bleacher Report recently ranked this haul as the biggest of the last 10 years. Regarding the swap, Favale offered the following: Even if we remove the benefit of hindsight, this return for the Thunder wins in a borderline landslide. Five first-round picks, two swaps and a promising prospect is a return unlike anything else we've seen the past 10 years, particularly when you consider that George asked Oklahoma City to facilitate his relocation to L.A.. Instead of getting railroaded by the Clippers, Thunder general manager Sam Presti essentially found a way to trade both PG and Kawhi Leonard, even though the latter never played for his team. Cake in the luxury of hindsight, and forget about it. Gilgeous-Alexander has morphed into a league MVP and head of the snake for a potential NBA champion. Another one of those selections turned into J-Dub, who's now an All-NBA player himself. Oklahoma City also turned what was the Jaquez pick into this year's No. 15 selection. As Favale mentioned, this return is unlike anything we've seen in the last decade, or perhaps ever. Gilgeous-Alexander and Williams are not only the two best players on the team, but also two of the best in the NBA. Gilgeous-Alexander won the MVP Award after his phenomenal regular season, and followed it up by winning the NBA Finals MVP. Williams, meanwhile, earned his first All-Star bid during the 2024-25 season, and appears set to be a cornerstone in OKC for years to come. Advertisement Meanwhile for the Clippers, this trade never came close to being even. If the team had won a Finals with George, it could perhaps be worth it, but the team only advanced to the Western Conference Finals once with George. Last offseason, George departed for the Philadelphia 76ers in free agency, enshrining this trade as one of the worst in recent memory, at least for the Clippers.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NBA big man injured day after signing $240 million contract
Jaren Jackson Jr. picked the right time to sign his huge new contract with the Memphis Grizzlies. Jackson, who inked a five-year, $240 million extension on Monday, suffered an injury on Tuesday. According to a report by ESPN, Jackson was injured during an off-site open basketball session. He will require a procedure to repair a turf toe injury in his right foot. Advertisement As of now, there is no timeline for his return to the court. Jackson, who battled injuries earlier in his career, played in 74 games for the Grizzlies last year. That marked the second-most in his seven-year career, which has all been spent with Memphis. He came just short of recording his highest point-per-game average, finishing at 22.2 with 5.6 rebounds, two assists, 1.5 blocks and 1.2 steals per game. For his career, Jackson is averaging 18.5 points with 5.5 rebounds, 1.9 blocks, 1.5 assists and a steal per night. The Grizzlies selected the 6-foot-10 power forward out of Michigan State with the No. 4 overall pick in the 2018 NBA Draft. Jackson played in just 11 games during the 2020-21 season, but has seen the court in at least 57 in his other six seasons.
