logo
#

Latest news with #KacieBreeding

NCAA women's athletes appeal blockbuster $2.8 billion NIL decision over legal violations
NCAA women's athletes appeal blockbuster $2.8 billion NIL decision over legal violations

Yahoo

time15-06-2025

  • Sport
  • Yahoo

NCAA women's athletes appeal blockbuster $2.8 billion NIL decision over legal violations

The post NCAA women's athletes appeal blockbuster $2.8 billion NIL decision over legal violations appeared first on ClutchPoints. The landmark antitrust settlement that approved a $2.8 billion payout for ex-NCAA athletes brought out objections from over a dozen groups of former players. Among them are eight women's players who filed an appeal claiming that the fair share of the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) money was being taken from female athletes. Advertisement Former soccer, volleyball, and track players opposed the proposed settlement split, which was set to send up to 90% of the funds to men's basketball and football players alone. The athletes include Vanderbilt's Kacie Breeding, Virginia's Kate Johnson, and College of Charleston's Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannamacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron, and Elizabeth Arnold. The attorneys who filed on the athletes' behalf in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals spoke out in defense of their clients and their case. The reasoning for the appeal came down to Title IX violations, which bans gender-based discrimination in schools in the U.S. and legally requires them to provide equitable opportunities to all on campuses. 'We support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law,' the statement told ESPN. 'The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of 1.1 billion dollars. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports.' The attorneys argued that the broadcast rights money would've had to be split equitably between men's and women's sports if it were being paid out during their college careers in the past under Title IX laws, and he maintains that the same standard should be followed now with the retroactive payments. Advertisement 'Title IX was deliberately ignored,' they continued. 'The parties and court acted like it was already addressed when it clearly was not. Complying with Title IX was a problem in this settlement, so they just chose to ignore it. That can't stand.' The appeal won't halt payments to current NCAA athletes, which are set to begin on July 1. However, former players will have to wait for their share of the back pay until the case works its way through the legal system, which could take months, if not years, in the complex appeals court. Related: Texas-Texas Tech series breaks WCWS viewership record Related: Michigan AD Warde Manuel reveals $15 million deficit following House Settlement approval

House Settlement Faces First Appeal as Title IX Takes Center Stage
House Settlement Faces First Appeal as Title IX Takes Center Stage

Yahoo

time12-06-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

House Settlement Faces First Appeal as Title IX Takes Center Stage

As expected, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's order to grant final approval of the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations has been challenged. A group of objectors—Kacie Breeding, Kate Johnson, Lexi Drumm, Emmie Wannemacher, Savannah Baron, Riley Haas, Emma Appleman and Elizabeth Arnold—filed a notice of appeal with Wilken on Wednesday. The objectors, all current or former Division I athletes, will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their attorneys include John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson Black and Cook and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin. Advertisement More from In January, the objectors argued in a brief to Wilken that the settlement's damages feature violates Title IX. Over a 10-year period, around $2.8 billion will be paid to qualified Division I athletes who played at some point from 2016 onward. It will compensate them for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities resulting from past NCAA eligibility rules. The objectors argue that because over 90% of this money is going to be paid to male athletes, it runs afoul of Title IX's requirement of gender equity in educational programs. From an antitrust perspective, more money paid to male athletes reflects market realities. As a whole, football and men's basketball generates more revenue than women's teams, meaning players in those sports are more harmed by NCAA rules that restrained competition. But the objectors insist that Title IX would have prevented 'such disproportionate damages in the first place.' Wilken rejected the Title IX argument for several reasons and in several instances. One reason is that the settlement resolves the antitrust claims raised in the three cases, while potential claims that arise under other areas of law—be they Title IX, state NIL statutes or labor and employment laws—are outside the scope of the case. Stated differently, Wilken can't rule on disagreements related to other areas of law that are outside the scope of the pleadings and that haven't been part of the litigation process—cases are limited to the areas of law and issues raised in the complaints. Advertisement In her recent 76-page-order to approve the settlement, Wilken enunciated additional reasons. She wrote that the objectors 'have cited no authority that Title IX applies to damages award' or that Title IX applies to the distribution of those damages. She also asserted that the settlement does not release potential claims that could be raised under Title IX to challenge the injunctive relief portion of the settlement. That portion will enable participating colleges to directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with $20.5 million expected as the initial annual cap. Many schools are expected to share more money with male athletes, which could lead to Title IX lawsuits against those schools. Importantly, those would be separate cases and not part of Wilken's decision to approve the settlement. In a statement Wednesday, Hagens Berman, which has represented the class members in the cases, warned an appeal could 'block payments to hundreds of thousands of athletes, delaying payments by a minimum of several months to potentially a year or more.' Further, the statement criticized an appeal 'based on a Title IX issue that Judge Wilken already disposed of correctly, quickly and multiple times.' The objectors will hope that the Ninth Circuit is more receptive to their Title IX argument than Wilken. But there could be a long wait for an answer: Some data suggests that from notice of an appeal to a decision often takes more than two years in the Ninth Circuit. As Hagens Berman statement alludes, if the damages portion is stayed pending appeal, class member athletes who are expecting payment will need to wait a while. Advertisement Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law
Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law

Fox News

time12-06-2025

  • Business
  • Fox News

Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law

Eight women's college soccer, volleyball and track and field athletes have filed an appeal challenging the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week, clearing the way for direct payments from universities to athletes. The eight women argue female athletes won't receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes barred from making money off their name, image and likeness (NIL). Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Haas, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia lead the appeal. They all previously filed objections to the proposed settlement. Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. "We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion," Hare said. "Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports." The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. "This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes," Hare said. "Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case." The appeal, filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, was first reported by Front Office Sports. It will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law
Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law

The Independent

time11-06-2025

  • Business
  • The Independent

Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law

Eight female athletes filed an appeal Wednesday of a landmark NCAA antitrust settlement, arguing that women would not receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes who were barred from making money off their name, image and likeness. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week, clearing the way for direct payments from universities to athletes and the end of the NCAA's amateurism model. The athletes who appealed the settlement competed in soccer, volleyball and track. They are: Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia. They have standing to appeal because they previously filed objections to the proposed settlement. Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement that the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. 'We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. 'Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports.' The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. 'This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes,' Hare said. ' Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case.' The appeal was filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, and was first reported by Front Office Sports. It would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ___

Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law
Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law

Associated Press

time11-06-2025

  • Business
  • Associated Press

Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law

Eight female athletes filed an appeal Wednesday of a landmark NCAA antitrust settlement, arguing that women would not receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes who were barred from making money off their name, image and likeness. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week, clearing the way for direct payments from universities to athletes and the end of the NCAA's amateurism model. The athletes who appealed the settlement competed in soccer, volleyball and track. They are: Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia. They have standing to appeal because they previously filed objections to the proposed settlement. Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement that the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. 'We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. 'Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports.' The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. 'This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes,' Hare said. 'Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case.' The appeal was filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, and was first reported by Front Office Sports. It would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ___ AP college sports:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store