Latest news with #CollegeSportsCommission
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House attorneys, power conferences work out deal to relax NIL collective roadblocks: Sources
LAS VEGAS — Less than a month into the implementation of the House settlement, college sports' new enforcement entity is adjusting its approach. Attorneys for the House plaintiffs have struck an agreement with the power conferences and NCAA officials to amend the decision-making from the industry's new enforcement arm, the College Sports Commission, related to how booster-backed collectives can compensate athletes. Multiple sources spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity. As part of the agreement, the College Sports Commission is expected to treat collectives or any 'school-associated entity' in a similar fashion as other businesses when determining the legitimacy of third-party NIL deals submitted to the CSC's NIL Go clearinghouse. This is a change from the CSC's previously publicized approach. According to a memo sent to schools two weeks ago, the CSC — created and administered by the power conferences — explained that it has denied dozens of athlete deals from collectives because it is holding collectives to a higher threshold, announcing that businesses whose sole existence is to pay athletes (i.e. collectives) cannot meet the definition of a 'valid business purpose.' House plaintiff attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman took issue with that interpretation, sending to the NCAA and power league officials a letter demanding the guidance be retracted and suggesting those rejected deals be reinstated. Kessler, in his letter, threatened to take the issue to the magistrate judge, Nathaniel Cousins, who is presiding over House settlement disputes. Some of the NIL deals that the CSC rejected while applying the previous guidance will be re-evaluated based on the new approach. The interpretation of the 'valid business purpose' rule is not insignificant. It is one of two measurements used by the new CSC's NIL Go clearinghouse to determine the legitimacy of third-party deals. The second is a Deloitte-created 'compensation range' standard that deals must fall within. The change to the valid business purpose standard potentially opens the door for the continuation of school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives to provide athletes with compensation that, if approved by the clearinghouse, does not count against a school's House settlement revenue-share cap. This provides collectives a path to strike deals with athletes as long as those transactions deliver to the public goods and services for a profit for the organization, such as holding athlete merchandise sales, autograph signings and athlete appearances at, for example, golf tournaments. The resolution creates what administrators term more of a 'soft cap' as opposed to a hard cap, as SEC commissioner Greg Sankey described it last week in an interview with Yahoo Sports. The expectation is that collectives will create legal ways to provide additional compensation, as Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti described Monday in an interview with Yahoo Sports from Big Ten media days. 'When something works, it gets copied,' he said. 'Things happening out there to provide additional NIL deals for student athletes that make sense and are allowed under rules, you're going to see more versions of that.' The change also, at least for now, prevents a legal challenge from leaders of a group of NIL collectives who began drafting a lawsuit against the CSC's approach. Over the last four years, collectives have served as the driving force for schools to compensate athletes, raising millions in booster money to provide schools a way to recruit and retain players. However, the CSC's original interpretation of the 'valid business purpose' definition, and resulting denials of collective deals, speaks to one of administrators' goals of the settlement — to shift athlete pay from these booster-run organizations to the schools, which are now permitted to directly share revenue with athletes under the capped system that began July 1. That said, many schools are still operating their collectives as a way to, perhaps, circumvent the system. For example, schools continue to operate their collectives — some out of fear that others are doing the same and some believing that the settlement will fail under the weight of legal challenges. 'We know that some people are saying, 'We're not worried because we don't think they can really enforce it!'' Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin told Yahoo Sports last week from SEC media days. 'They don't think NIL contracts are going to get kicked back (by the clearinghouse) or they think they're not going to be able to win long-term (legal challenges) because of players rights.' Ultimately, Sankey suggested, schools hold authority to control their own affiliated collectives. 'For how long have people been begging for guardrails?' Sankey asked. 'Well, now we have guardrails. Those broadly across the country that claim they wanted guardrails need to operate within the guardrails. If you allow what's happened to continue to escalate, there would be a very small number of programs that would be competitive with each other and we'd not have a national sport or a national championship.' The resolution may not completely end what will likely be continuous negotiations over particular enforcement rules between the power leagues controlling the CSC and the House plaintiff attorneys, who hold authority and veto powers over various aspects of the settlement. Petitti cautioned Tuesday that more such negotiations are expected in the future. 'I don't think it will be the last time that an issue comes up in the process,' he said. 'The settlement approval came later than expected. It compressed the time period.' The guidance change may also not prevent future legal challenges over other enforcement aspects, including Deloitte's compensation range concept or the appeals arbitration system that athletes can use for deals denied a second time. The CSC, in its first month of existence, is reliant on athletes submitting deals. Athletes are required to submit any third-party deal of $600 or more to an NIL clearinghouse, NIL Go. Those deals flagged by NIL Go are sent to the CSC and its new leader, Bryan Seeley, to determine an enforcement decision. As of two weeks ago, more than 100 deals were denied and at least 100 more were under review. More than 1,500 deals had been approved.
New York Times
22-07-2025
- Business
- New York Times
ACC's Jim Phillips says to give NCAA revenue sharing model a chance amid uncertainty
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Schools have only been able to pay players directly for three weeks, and questions have already surfaced about the sustainability of the new system. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips' message Tuesday: Give this model a chance to work. 'Without question, there's still significant work to be done, but we must acknowledge that, collectively, we are truly in a better place and we have a responsibility to make it work in the future,' Phillips said at the start of his league's football kickoff. Advertisement The questions have centered on whether collectives can continue paying players after the House settlement. Guidance from the College Sports Commission — the new enforcement arm that's policing deals — suggested those deals aren't what industry officials consider 'legitimate NIL.' Even if the dispute doesn't trigger more lawsuits, Phillips said Tuesday that the issue could go before a judge for interpretation. In the meantime, Phillips said the goals of transparency and standardized rules are important to pursue as schools share up to $20.5 million directly with players. He said 15,519 players have registered for the clearinghouse, NIL Go, along with almost 2,000 agents. He also acknowledged the fact that schools have traditionally tried to skirt rules, which is why he's emphasizing restraint. 'We can't help ourselves sometimes,' Phillips said. 'People know what the rules are relative to $20.5 (million). They know what legitimate NIL is. You can play in that gray area if you want, but all that does is undermine a new structure. 'We fought hard for the things I just mentioned, and we'd be well-served to just kind of relax and let this thing settle in.' Phillips addressed several other topics Tuesday: • He favors future College Football Playoff formats that guarantee spots for only the top five conference champions. The Big Ten has advocated for a model that tilts toward itself and the SEC with four bids for those leagues and two apiece for the ACC and Big 12. Phillips did not address that idea specifically but stressed the 'importance of coming together to find a solution that is truly best for all of college football.' 'I want to stay committed to access and fairness to all of college football, not only the ACC,' Phillips added later. He said he's open to expansion models that include five conference champions plus either nine or 11 at-large teams. Advertisement • The ACC has discussed moving from eight to nine conference games, like the SEC has considered for years. One league's decision affects the other. Phillips said the ACC prefers eight league games so it can schedule marquee nonconference matchups, like this year's slate (Clemson-LSU, Florida State-Alabama and North Carolina-TCU). The addition of a ninth conference game for either conference would jeopardize in-state, ACC-SEC rivalries like Florida-Florida State or Georgia-Georgia Tech. 'At the end of the day, I like where our league is,' Phillips said. 'But we'll adjust if we have to.' • The conference will mandate player availability reports in football, basketball and baseball. The first football report must be submitted two days before a game, then one day before and on the day of. The ACC has not yet come up with a fine structure if coaches or schools are not forthcoming about injuries. • The ACC will also start fining schools for field/court stormings after games if visiting teams and officials haven't yet left the area: $50,000 for the first offense, $100,000 for the second and $200,000 for the third. Those fines accumulate over two years. Also on Tuesday, ESPN announced that it hired former Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher as an analyst for the ACC Network. Fisher led the Seminoles to conference titles from 2012 to 2014 and the national championship in 2013. He left for Texas A&M near the end of the 2017 season.
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Every Division I School's Revenue-Sharing Decision for 2025-26
The House settlement approved in June will transform college sports immediately. Starting in 2025-26, schools will be permitted to directly pay athletes up to $20.5 million annually in revenue-sharing. Not all schools, however, are jumping into the new landscape. On Tuesday, the College Sports Commission released a list of schools that opted in to sharing revenue with athletes. Division I schools had to decide by June 30, and although 310 athletic departments opted in, 54 chose not to. More from Ex-Penn State Trustee, Who Sued to See Elevate Deal, Still Has 'Concerns' NCAA Scores Major Antitrust Win as Eligibility Rules Upheld Fanatics Accused of Conspiring With Leagues, Unions on High Card Prices To no surprise, all schools in power conferences—the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC—are participating. Other leagues with complete participation: the American, Atlantic 10, Big East, C-USA, CAA, Horizon, MAC, Missouri Valley, Southwestern, Sun Belt, WAC and West Coast conferences. Every FBS school opted in aside from the service academies—Army, Navy and Air Force—which are prevented from compensating athletes due to military regulations. On the other end of the spectrum, the Ivy League, which currently permits athletes to receive NIL deals but not athletic scholarships, stated in January that its eight schools would not participate in revenue-sharing. The Patriot League was the only other conference with zero members opting in. Several recent March Madness Cinderellas opted out, including UMBC and Fairleigh Dickinson, the only two men's No. 16 seeds to ever defeat a No. 1 seed; they accomplished the feat in 2018 and 2023, respectively. Saint Peter's, which made an unprecedented run to the Elite Eight as a No. 15 seed in 2022, was also among the opt-outs. Some schools zigged where their peers zagged, such as Long Island University, which was the only Northeast Conference program to opt in. On the flip side, North Carolina Central was the only MEAC team to opt out. The University of Nebraska Omaha was the only member of the Summit League to not participate. In an online statement, the school explained that its operational and financial plans were already in place for the 2025-26, so opting into revenue-sharing 'would simply introduce new and unresolved variables at a time when clarity is critical.' The athletic department plans to opt in some time in the future. In addition to the direct financial cost of sharing revenue with athletes, another concern for participating schools is adhering to certain roster size limitations. Football teams, for instance, are capped at 105 players. University of Central Arkansas athletic director Matt Whiting said in an interview on Wednesday that potential loss of tuition money influenced the school's decision to opt out. 'Opting in would require us to reduce by a significant amount [the number] of student-athletes in our program,' Whiting said. 'That's obviously lost revenue for the university during a time where enrollment across the country is declining.' With a full-time undergraduate enrollment of 6,474, Central Arkansas is actually bigger than the majority of schools forgoing revenue-sharing. The average non-FBS opt-out has just shy of 6,000 students, whereas the average FCS or non-football D-I school that opted in has more than 7,800. Six of the 10 D-I schools with the smallest student populations chose to opt out, including Presbyterian College and Chicago State University, which had just 856 and 981 full-time undergrads last year, respectively, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education. Another factor: Revenue-sharing will likely face Title IX lawsuits, given that participating schools are expected to share much more revenue with male athletes than female athletes. Schools declining to opt in avoid having to address these legal concerns. Still, most D-I schools decided that the pros outweigh the cons. Florida Gulf Coast's athletic director, for instance, cited the fact that it would lose only nine roster spots but gain flexibility for the program and opportunities for athletes. Nine Division III schools that participate in Division I in one or two sports also opted in. Johns Hopkins, which has 29 Final Four appearances in D-I men's lacrosse since 1970, will participate, along with Dallas Baptist (baseball) and Augusta (golf). The other six programs all boast D-I men's ice hockey teams: Minnesota State, Minnesota Duluth, St. Cloud State, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech, and Colorado College. Best of Tennis Prize Money Tracker: Which Player Has Earned the Most in 2025? Browns Officially Get Public Money for New Stadium in Ohio Budget WNBA Franchise Valuations Ranking List: From Golden State to Atlanta
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What is ‘true' name, image and likeness in college sports? The courts might end up deciding
Four years ago, the century-old model for college sports was turned on its head. College athletes began earning name, image and likeness money in 2021. It didn't take long for boosters to exploit a loophole and weaponize NIL deals as a means to entice recruits and transfers. NIL collectives sprang up to manage the competitive field. Schools initially shunned them, but soon realized they had no choice but to embrace them. As of last week, those same schools are now at war with those collectives. Empowered by the game-changing House settlement, schools are mounting a grand last stand to declare once and for all that collectives can't claim pay-for-play is a valid business. An entire industry's business model — itself only a few years old — is now at stake, not to mention hundreds of millions in contracted payouts to athletes. The House settlement resolved a five-year-old antitrust dispute between former athletes denied the opportunity to earn NIL money against the NCAA and Power 5 conferences. In agreeing to allow schools to directly pay their athletes up to $20.5 million a year, the defendants gained the authority to implement a new enforcement arm with the authority to approve or deny NIL deals from outside parties. Last Thursday, that newly formed entity, the College Sports Commission, issued guidance regarding the NIL Go clearinghouse, which must approve any outside NIL transaction of more than $600. It's been well known for more than a year that the clearinghouse would determine whether a collective's payment to an athlete for, say, an autograph signing, fell within an approved 'range of compensation.' But this language went beyond that. It declared that collectives themselves do not meet a 'valid business purpose,' and thus can expect their deals for athletes to appear at a golf tournament or promote their merchandise will not be approved. 'Collectives in the form they've been going for the last three years, paying athletes directly with donor contributions, is going to be a thing of the past,' said Utah athletic director Mark Harlan. ''True' NIL is still being allowed, but just like in pro sports, where there is a hard (salary) cap.' 'All of their (athletes') deals are getting shut down by NIL Go,' said a leader in the collective space. 'Even deals of $5,000 or less.' Administrators like Harlan see the House settlement as an opportunity to wrest back control from the boosters and agents that have increasingly dictated the state of their rosters. That's why the Power 5 conferences (before the Pac-12 was gutted) created CSC and NIL Go. Some schools have already either shut down their collective (Georgia, Colorado) or folded it into the athletic department (Ohio State, Texas Tech). But the collectives still standing don't share Harlan's outlook. The head of a Big 12 collective said he convinced his school's athletic director they should keep operating their collective independently. 'Circumventing the cap is not going away,' he said. Collectives have been bracing for NIL Go for some time — many paid their athletes' 2025-26 contracts up front before July 1 to avoid the clearinghouse. According to Opendorse, a platform that processes NIL transactions for much of the industry, collectives' June payments were up 824 percent from the year before. Even so, some did not take kindly to the CSC's blanket decree invalidating their businesses. 'They said the quiet part out loud: We hate collectives and pay-for-play, and our sole purpose is to restrict that money and regain control,' said the head of a major program's collective. 'Now they have provided direct evidence for the lawsuits that will start flying.' In fact, it took less than 24 hours for the CSC's memo to raise the ire of some lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler, the lead plaintiffs' attorney in the House settlement, wrote a letter to CSC and the NCAA demanding they retract that guidance, saying it violated the terms of the settlement. If not, he said, they will seek relief from the court-appointed Magistrate overseeing the settlement. 'There is nothing in the Settlement Agreement to permit Defendants or the CSC … to decide that it would not be a valid business purpose for a school's collective to engage in for-profit promotions of goods or services using paid-for student-athlete NIL,' they wrote. 'The CSC's position that prohibiting collectives from paying athletes for doing nothing more than promoting the collective could be seen as consistent with the goals of the settlement,' said Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law program. 'But it could also be seen as unnecessarily restricting the rights of college athletes (and collectives).' A person briefed on the discussions said the attorneys had been made aware of the language before it went public and did not object at the time. 'They're just trying to advocate for their clients,' the person said. The dispute over what constitutes a 'valid business purpose' boils down to one central question. Between the two sides speaks to a broader question that hovers over the entire industry right now: What exactly is, as Harlan calls it, 'true NIL?' In commissioners' and athletic directors' eyes, it's cut-and-dried: Traditional athlete endorsement deals. Caitlin Clark in a State Farm ad. Quinn Ewers in a Dr. Pepper spot. Hundreds of athletes further down the ladder showing off their favorite brand's energy drink or workout gear on TikTok. 'It's what we've always hoped with NIL, that it wasn't going to be promised to a kid to come play for a school,' said Harlan. But that's exactly what it became. Schools were prevented by NCAA rules from making their own deals, and boosters saw an opening and began pooling their money to license potential athletes' NIL rights. Eventually, they were doing so for entire rosters. According to Opendorse, collectives accounted for nearly 82 percent of an estimated $1.675 billion college NIL market in 2024-25 — an enormous pot that athletes will no longer receive if collectives' deals are invalidated. Revenue-sharing may replace those dollars for some athletes, but certainly not all, including few women's athletes. Most schools are allocating as much as 90 percent of their $20.5 million to football and men's basketball. 'There are only a small amount of athletes that have real market value to command real commercial dollars,' said a second collective head. 'The vast majority are hurt by (the CSC) guidance. That will not play well in the court of law or the court of public opinion. Especially once these athletes start complaining about their deals being denied even though they were 'promised' that compensation.' But those 'promises' are exactly what the CSC is attempting to stamp out. NCAA enforcement made a short-lived attempt at the dawn of NIL to weed out booster involvement in recruiting, notably targeting Tennessee for its collective's eight-figure deal to quarterback Nico Iamaleava in 2022. But in early 2024, that state's attorney general filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA and successfully secured a preliminary injunction that explicitly allowed athletes to negotiate NIL deals with boosters and collectives. The parties reached a settlement a year later, making that policy permanent. The CSC represents the conferences, not the NCAA. And its policy does not say those parties can't negotiate with each other. They are, however, being told preemptively that the deals they're negotiating will not be approved. Which sounds to some like the next legal mess. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Sports Business, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company
New York Times
17-07-2025
- Business
- New York Times
What is ‘true' name, image and likeness in college sports? The courts might end up deciding
Four years ago, the century-old model for college sports was turned on its head. College athletes began earning name, image and likeness money in 2021. It didn't take long for boosters to exploit a loophole and weaponize NIL deals as a means to entice recruits and transfers. NIL collectives sprang up to manage the competitive field. Schools initially shunned them, but soon realized they had no choice but to embrace them. Advertisement As of last week, those same schools are now at war with those collectives. Empowered by the game-changing House settlement, schools are mounting a grand last stand to declare once and for all that collectives can't claim pay-for-play is a valid business. An entire industry's business model — itself only a few years old — is now at stake, not to mention hundreds of millions in contracted payouts to athletes. The House settlement resolved a five-year-old antitrust dispute between former athletes denied the opportunity to earn NIL money against the NCAA and Power 5 conferences. In agreeing to allow schools to directly pay their athletes up to $20.5 million a year, the defendants gained the authority to implement a new enforcement arm with the authority to approve or deny NIL deals from outside parties. Today the College Sports Commission issued additional guidance to schools about the definition of 'valid business purpose' and the importance of sharing information about entities involved in third-party NIL deals. More information is available here: — College Sports Commission (@theCSCommission) July 10, 2025 Last Thursday, that newly formed entity, the College Sports Commission, issued guidance regarding the NIL Go clearinghouse, which must approve any outside NIL transaction of more than $600. It's been well known for more than a year that the clearinghouse would determine whether a collective's payment to an athlete for, say, an autograph signing, fell within an approved 'range of compensation.' But this language went beyond that. It declared that collectives themselves do not meet a 'valid business purpose,' and thus can expect their deals for athletes to appear at a golf tournament or promote their merchandise will not be approved. 'Collectives in the form they've been going for the last three years, paying athletes directly with donor contributions, is going to be a thing of the past,' said Utah athletic director Mark Harlan. ''True' NIL is still being allowed, but just like in pro sports, where there is a hard (salary) cap.' Maybe this is just me, but has this group been under a rock? Makes me appreciate the team at the Crimson Collective who knew that after the settlement agreement, the game charged. True NIL….not that hard — Mark Harlan (@MarkHarlan_AD) July 10, 2025 'All of their (athletes') deals are getting shut down by NIL Go,' said a leader in the collective space. 'Even deals of $5,000 or less.' Administrators like Harlan see the House settlement as an opportunity to wrest back control from the boosters and agents that have increasingly dictated the state of their rosters. That's why the Power 5 conferences (before the Pac-12 was gutted) created CSC and NIL Go. Some schools have already either shut down their collective (Georgia, Colorado) or folded it into the athletic department (Ohio State, Texas Tech). Advertisement But the collectives still standing don't share Harlan's outlook. The head of a Big 12 collective said he convinced his school's athletic director they should keep operating their collective independently. 'Circumventing the cap is not going away,' he said. Collectives have been bracing for NIL Go for some time — many paid their athletes' 2025-26 contracts up front before July 1 to avoid the clearinghouse. According to Opendorse, a platform that processes NIL transactions for much of the industry, collectives' June payments were up 824 percent from the year before. Even so, some did not take kindly to the CSC's blanket decree invalidating their businesses. 'They said the quiet part out loud: We hate collectives and pay-for-play, and our sole purpose is to restrict that money and regain control,' said the head of a major program's collective. 'Now they have provided direct evidence for the lawsuits that will start flying.' In fact, it took less than 24 hours for the CSC's memo to raise the ire of some lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler, the lead plaintiffs' attorney in the House settlement, wrote a letter to CSC and the NCAA demanding they retract that guidance, saying it violated the terms of the settlement. If not, he said, they will seek relief from the court-appointed Magistrate overseeing the settlement. 'There is nothing in the Settlement Agreement to permit Defendants or the CSC … to decide that it would not be a valid business purpose for a school's collective to engage in for-profit promotions of goods or services using paid-for student-athlete NIL,' they wrote. 'The CSC's position that prohibiting collectives from paying athletes for doing nothing more than promoting the collective could be seen as consistent with the goals of the settlement,' said Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law program. 'But it could also be seen as unnecessarily restricting the rights of college athletes (and collectives).' A person briefed on the discussions said the attorneys had been made aware of the language before it went public and did not object at the time. 'They're just trying to advocate for their clients,' the person said. The dispute over what constitutes a 'valid business purpose' boils down to one central question. Between the two sides speaks to a broader question that hovers over the entire industry right now: What exactly is, as Harlan calls it, 'true NIL?' In commissioners' and athletic directors' eyes, it's cut-and-dried: Traditional athlete endorsement deals. Caitlin Clark in a State Farm ad. Quinn Ewers in a Dr. Pepper spot. Hundreds of athletes further down the ladder showing off their favorite brand's energy drink or workout gear on TikTok. Advertisement 'It's what we've always hoped with NIL, that it wasn't going to be promised to a kid to come play for a school,' said Harlan. But that's exactly what it became. Schools were prevented by NCAA rules from making their own deals, and boosters saw an opening and began pooling their money to license potential athletes' NIL rights. Eventually, they were doing so for entire rosters. According to Opendorse, collectives accounted for nearly 82 percent of an estimated $1.675 billion college NIL market in 2024-25 — an enormous pot that athletes will no longer receive if collectives' deals are invalidated. Revenue-sharing may replace those dollars for some athletes, but certainly not all, including few women's athletes. Most schools are allocating as much as 90 percent of their $20.5 million to football and men's basketball. 'There are only a small amount of athletes that have real market value to command real commercial dollars,' said a second collective head. 'The vast majority are hurt by (the CSC) guidance. That will not play well in the court of law or the court of public opinion. Especially once these athletes start complaining about their deals being denied even though they were 'promised' that compensation.' But those 'promises' are exactly what the CSC is attempting to stamp out. NCAA enforcement made a short-lived attempt at the dawn of NIL to weed out booster involvement in recruiting, notably targeting Tennessee for its collective's eight-figure deal to quarterback Nico Iamaleava in 2022. But in early 2024, that state's attorney general filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA and successfully secured a preliminary injunction that explicitly allowed athletes to negotiate NIL deals with boosters and collectives. The parties reached a settlement a year later, making that policy permanent. Advertisement The CSC represents the conferences, not the NCAA. And its policy does not say those parties can't negotiate with each other. They are, however, being told preemptively that the deals they're negotiating will not be approved. Which sounds to some like the next legal mess.
