Latest news with #NILGo
USA Today
17-06-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Let chaos begin: NCAA NIL reform starts after historic settlement verdict
Let chaos begin: NCAA NIL reform starts after historic settlement verdict When the virtual gavel officially struck on the night of June 7, the college football landscape underwent a historic shift that was heard around the world. Approval of the NCAA's settlement, which includes three antitrust cases, sent shockwaves throughout fan bases, media circles, and universities. Thousands of former athletes who played from 2016 to 2024 are set to earn $2.8 billion in back pay for missed name, image, and likeness opportunities. The settlement also sets a new precedent, allowing current and future athletes to legally receive compensation directly from their universities, including the Texas A&M Aggies. While a five-year legal battle comes to a close, the ruling leaves more questions than answers about the future of collegiate athletics. Yahoo Sports college football writer Ross Dellenger has provided extensive coverage and continues to post updates as the NCAA constructs new policies in response to the settlement. One of those new establishments set by the NCAA was announced in a large document Q&A release: The acceptance of the settlement has opened up a whole new world for college athletics, as the new NIL Go clearinghouse began operating on June 14. The purpose of the proposed platform is to establish a system for compensation while preventing potential booster payments. NIL deals would run through the software and provide athletes with direct compensation, eliminating the need to worry about potential conflicts that could undermine the NCAA's established precedents. Here is more from Dellenger on the clearinghouse and what it will do for athletes and universities moving forward: The new algorithm was produced and built by Deloitte, an accounting firm and digital platform established in 1845. However, the legality of the systems remains in question. One of the remaining conflicts in the proposed system is the figuration of subpoena powers and how the NCAA and the courts would use them. According to Dellenger's expansive deep dive into the systems, Deloitte reported some impressive statistics in the company's presentation that could benefit the NCAA in preventing potential booster pay. "For example, Deloitte officials claim that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied in their algorithms, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved," Dellenger said. "Deloitte has also shared with officials that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals valued at less than $100,000." The biggest complaint that most have presented in discussions of regulations and the future of college athletics is the overhaul of the transfer portal. Since the NCAA depleted the limit set on the number of times an athlete can transfer in 2024, the portal has seen record activity as players seek new opportunities. Some of those players were transferring during NCAA postseason play, which was addressed by Texas Rep. Marc Veasely, according to Dellenger. As a result of the ruling, the future of collegiate athletics remains unclear. The direction of regulations and finalizations in potential NCAA legalities requires fixing, or else the transfer portal will continue to run rampant, and college athletics will slowly fade into a professional-football-esque look. Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Dylan on X: @dylanmflippo.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders?
ORLANDO, Fla. — The man steps onto a raised platform, walks behind a podium and leans toward the microphone. Before him, more than 200 college athletic administrators shift to the front of their seats. For months now, they've been waiting for this moment. Advertisement 'I'm Karl,' the man says, 'with Deloitte.' Karl Schaefer is a young man with perfectly cropped hair, a sharp grin and slender frame. He is here to lead a 40-minute presentation on the single most talked-about concept of college athletics' new revenue-sharing era: the Deloitte-run clearinghouse dubbed 'NIL Go.' Though it remains unsaid by those in power, the goal of NIL Go is quite clear: prevent booster payments to athletes that, for four years now, have been masquerading as commercial and endorsement deals. As Schaefer flips through slides of the NIL Go software system, for the first time revealed publicly, whispers within the room build to murmurs. Attendees capture slides with photos. Some video the entire event. Others scribble notes on a pad. How Deloitte and the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, plan to prevent booster pay is the target of much criticism and fascination — plenty of it shrouded in secrecy for the last many months. Advertisement In central Florida, at an annual conference of administrators this week, the shroud was at least partially lifted. Not only was the platform's interface shown on a giant projection screen during Schaefer's presentation — including the six-step submission and approval process — but, in interviews with Yahoo Sports or during other public presentations, college sports executives who helped craft the system answered questions that, up to this point, had remained unanswered. While many doubt that the clearinghouse will withstand inevitable legal challenges, administrators here provided legitimate reasons for why they believe in its long-term survival. Most notable of those, says NCAA president Charlie Baker, is that the clearinghouse's appeals process — arbitration — is equipped with subpoena powers. 'They do have that power,' Baker told Yahoo Sports this week. 'Arbitration typically has subpoena power and I'm pretty sure since this one sits inside an injunction, they will have it.' Officials at the power conferences confirmed that 'significant subpoena powers' exist under the arbitration appeals process, but those powers are less expansive than subpoena authority within a courtroom. The decision to use subpoena powers and how exactly to use them — limited or broad — is expected to rest with the arbitrator presiding over the appeals process. Advertisement A subpoena compels individuals or entities to produce evidence under penalty of law, such as turning over text messages, emails and phone call logs as well as testifying before investigators. It is one of the more important tools for officers of the law, such as police investigators — and something that was never available to the NCAA enforcement staff. 'We won't have complete subpoena power, but if an athlete goes into arbitration … those records, you can get access to some of those records,' said Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork, who is a member of a settlement implementation committee that helped construct the new enforcement entity. 'It's going to be a new day.' The algorithm Back in the Deloitte presentation room, Schaefer is explaining the submission process for NIL Go. Athletes are required to submit third-party NIL deals of $600 or more using a web-based submission system, not unlike an online registration system for, say, a passport. Advertisement Shaefer explains, gesturing toward a giant projection screen, that the clearinghouse makes three determinations once a deal is submitted: Is the third party an 'associated entity' with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand? If so, more intense scrutiny is applied in the vetting process. Public companies can, and many of them will, be deemed as associated entities. Is the deal for a 'valid business purpose?" The third-party business, brand or individual must be receiving true value from the activities, such as an autograph session, television commercial or speaking engagement. Is the deal within Deloitte's 'range of compensation' paid to similarly situated individuals? This is perhaps the most criticized of the concepts. Deloitte created 'the range of compensation' through an algorithm using fair market value analysis, comparing similar types of NIL deals struck between an athlete and the third party. More is now known about that algorithm. Clemson athletic director Graham Neff, one of the implementation committee members, details the factors used to form a compensation range: 'Athletic performance is a big part of it. Your social media reach and following. Market — where schools are at. The reach of your school within said market.' This will vary by school. Neff offers an example. 'The reach of Georgia Tech in Atlanta is different than the reach of Georgia State,' he says. Advertisement Neff believes that a 'majority' of NIL deals will derive from 'associated companies,' as school sponsors, multi-media rights partners and individual alumni and boosters work to provide universities with additional compensation so they can exceed the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap that each school is afforded. Third-party NIL compensation that passes the clearinghouse does not count against the cap. Even those who helped craft the new enforcement entity acknowledge that the system is attempting to do a very difficult thing: bring regulation to an enterprise that has, for four years now, seen little to no regulation or enforcement of athlete compensation. 'There's some toothpaste back in the tube a little bit given the environment,' Neff said. For example, Deloitte officials claim that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied in their algorithm, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved. Deloitte has also shared with officials that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000. Advertisement These figures suggest that the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives are distributing to athletes. 'No one is trying to restrict someone's earning potential, but what we're trying to say is, 'What is the real market?'' Bjork says. 'Everybody you talk to about the pro market will tell you that NIL deals for pro athletes are really small. In the collective world, we created a false market.' Denial, approval and arbitration Displayed on the giant screen before hundreds of athletic administrators is the six-step clearinghouse submission and approval process. Advertisement Step 6 lays out the process for a player if his or her deal is denied by the clearinghouse because it either is not struck for a valid business purpose or it does not meet the compensation range. (1) Revise and resubmit the deal so that the compensation amount falls within the algorithm's range. For instance, if the clearinghouse deems that a submitted $1 million deal should be $500,000, the athlete can resubmit for $500,000 and the school, if it so chooses, can compensate the athlete for the other $500,000 through its revenue-share pool. (2) Cancel the deal completely. (3) Request arbitration as an appeals process. Advertisement (4) Accept the rejected deal as is. In this case, the athlete 'may face enforcement consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility),' the Deloitte presentation slide reads. According to settlement terms, attorneys for the plaintiffs (the suing athletes) and defendants (NCAA and power conferences) will work together to select a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators to preside over these cases. Individual arbitration processes are expected to last no more than 45 days. In an interview last fall, plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler described the arbitration as a trial-like set of hearings in front of an arbitrator — the new enforcement entity on one side (NCAA and power conferences) and the athlete on the other side. NCAA president Charlie Baker says the new NIL enforcement process will add accountability to the system, as long as athletes and schools follow the rules. (Photo by) (Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images) How an arbitrator rules may 'depend on what evidence' each side produces, Kessler said. As Baker and others have noted, that evidence may now be generated through limited subpoena power. Advertisement But one lingering question remains: Will an athlete's school fight alongside him or her in the case? 'I expect that if the athlete pursues it, the school will support the athlete and help provide the athlete with counsel to help represent them in that challenge,' Kessler said. Penalties for NIL violations Implementation committee members say they are finalizing a 'menu' of penalties for those found to commit violations within this new revenue-sharing era, most notably those found to have (1) circumvented the cap with old-fashioned cheating or intentional or accidental miscalculations; and (2) tampered with another college athlete or prospect who is under contract. Officials decided against using a set penalty matrix as the NCAA currently does (Level I, Level II, etc.). Instead, they are providing the new College Sports Commission CEO, Brian Seeley, with the flexibility to choose penalties from a wide range of options, depending on the individual circumstance. Advertisement 'Those penalties being worked through are going to be significant and are going to be different than any penalties we've had previously,' said new Michigan State athletic director J Batt, a member of the implementation committee. An example of a new kind of penalty is a reduction in transfers that a school can acquire from the portal, Bjork says. But there are others. A postseason ban remains among the penalties, said Desiree Reed-Francois, the Arizona athletic director and implementation committee member. There are also stiff fines — multi-million dollars in value — that may be levied against schools, administrators and coaches. Suspensions, for coaches and administrators, are on the penalty menu as well. 'The fines are substantive,' Reed-Francois says. Advertisement One penalty is off the table. Administrators say that reducing a school's revenue-share pool for subsequent years is not permitted. The settlement guarantees that schools are afforded the same revenue share pool. Pushback The clearinghouse has made its way to the U.S. Capitol. During a congressional hearing over college sports on Thursday, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, chided college leaders for instituting a new enforcement process that 'guarantees people in power always win and the athletes who fuel this multi-billion dollar industry always lose.' One of the witnesses in that hearing, Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association, chimed in as well, accusing the NCAA and conference leadership as wanting to 'shut down boosters' ability to pay players just to monopolize it' themselves. Advertisement College executives reject these notions and consider all of these elements — even the new enforcement process — as protected by a legally binding settlement. The new enforcement entity was not created by committee members in some 'backroom,' Bjork says. The implementation committee only provided structure to an enforcement piece that is 'codified' within the settlement. 'There are processes here that have been approved by the court and the plaintiffs and the defendants that people are going to be expected to follow,' Baker told Yahoo Sports. 'Given so much of what's been going on in the third-party space hasn't been accountable or transparent, and has made a lot of people outside of college athletics a lot of money, I can understand why there might be some grumpiness about this.' Soon, power conference schools — and others opting into the settlement — are expected to sign an affiliation or membership agreement. With this binding document, schools waive their right to sue over enforcement decisions and commit to settlement terms, even if their state laws contradict them. The agreement — itself the subject of legal concerns, even from some schools — is an indictment on an industry of stakeholders that, for competitive reasons, are constantly scrambling to bend, break and shatter rules to gain even the slightest edge. Advertisement Earlier this week in Orlando, members of the implementation committee publicly implored schools to follow rules. 'This has to be a mindset change,' Bjork told the audience. 'We see all the reports and naysayers, that 'we're going to go back to old-school cheating and all these things and that this is not going to work.' This has to work.' 'This will work if we make it work,' Reed-Francois said. 'We need to shift our mindset and make this work.' Can it be done? But what if athletes decide not to submit any of their third-party deals at all? 'People will be turning in people,' Reed-Francois said. 'There's a lot more `transparency now.' Advertisement Back in the convention hall, Schaefer, from Deloitte, is winding down his presentation. He thanks the crowd before beginning to walk off the stage. From among the crowd, a few raised hands emerge. Folks have questions. Others in the audience remind the hand-raisers of something announced before the presentation began: The Deloitte employees are not taking questions.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How BYU Plans to Distribute $20.5 Revenue Share After House Settlement
How BYU Plans to Distribute $20.5 Revenue Share After House Settlement originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Newly appointed BYU athletic director Brian Santiago sees the recently approved House v. NCAA settlement not as a challenge, but as a strategic advantage for the Cougars going forward. Advertisement In a Tuesday appearance on BYUtv's 'BYU Sports Nation,' Santiago said the landmark agreement which allows schools to directly pay student-athletes aligns well with BYU's values and long-term vision. 'This actually shifts the power of college athletics back to the universities,' Santiago said. 'For us at BYU, we think it's a strategic advantage." He added it "kind of evens the playing field." The settlement that was approved last week by Judge Claudia Wilken, goes into effect July 1. The schools who opt in can distribute up to $20.5 million annually in shared revenue. Santiago explained that BYU will prioritize investing in student-athletes who align with the school's mission. While he did not specify how much BYU will allocate in year one, he stressed the athletic department's commitment to being 'very competitive in the space.' The revenue distribution will largely benefit football and men's basketball, which Santiago called 'the ship' that drives the rest of the department. However, he added that all 19 Cougar programs will feel the impact. Advertisement Related: AJ Dybantsa denies $7 million payout from BYU 'We're going to invest in all of our sports,' Santiago said. 'We want all of our student-athletes to feel the impact.. and chase their dreams.' Santiago also praised the introduction of the NIL Go clearinghouse, which will ensure third-party endorsement deals reflect fair market value. It's a move he believes brings much-needed structure to what was previously 'the wild, wild west.' Related: Big 12 Official Makes Final Decision on Controversial Penalty From BYU-Utah Despite BYU's limited exposure to the $2.8 billion in NCAA back pay, given the schools' recent realignment to the Big 12, Santiago welcomed the broader shift in college athletics. 'It takes a shift away from the money back to where it should be,' Santiago said. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 11, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge Approves Landmark NCAA Settlement, Paving Way for Revenue Sharing
Judge Approves Landmark NCAA Settlement, Paving Way for Revenue Sharing originally appeared on Athlon Sports. A federal judge on Friday approved a historic settlement that will allow colleges to begin directly paying student-athletes, signaling the most significant shift in the history of college sports and effectively dismantling the amateurism model that defined the NCAA for more than a century. Advertisement U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who has long presided over high-profile NCAA cases, gave final approval to the House v. NCAA settlement, nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and others filed suit seeking to end restrictions on athlete compensation. Under the agreement, schools can distribute up to $20.5 million annually to athletes, beginning as soon as July 1. Additionally, $2.7 billion will be paid out over 10 years to thousands of former athletes. The ruling completes the transition that began with Wilken's earlier decisions, including her 2014 ruling in favor of Ed O'Bannon, and the NCAA's 2021 decision to allow athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. The new revenue-sharing model pushes even further, professionalizing college athletics and placing much of the power in the hands of the four major conferences. While athletes in high-revenue sports like football and men's basketball stand to benefit significantly with some reportedly landing NIL deals worth more than $10 million, the settlement could reduce opportunities for walk-ons and Olympic sport athletes. In response, Wilken mandated a process to allow athletes cut during early implementation to be reinstated. Related: Kentucky Basketball Beats Cap Proposal With NIL Power Play Key dates include the June 11 launch of the NIL Go portal, a June 15 opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools, and the start of revenue sharing on July 1. Schools must also comply with new roster limits by their sport's season start or by Dec. 1 for winter and spring sports. Advertisement Related: Michigan Running Back's Groundbreaking NIL Deal Redefines College Football Despite the sweeping changes, legal uncertainty remains. Varying state laws and the absence of a federal NIL framework leave room for future litigation. NCAA President Charlie Baker continues to push for national legislation and antitrust protection to stabilize the rapidly evolving landscape. Still, attorneys behind the settlement argue it delivers what athletes have long deserved, which is a share of the billions their efforts generate from TV deals, merchandise, and championships. As the 2025–26 academic year begins, the college sports model will look unlike anything seen before. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
MLB Executive Brian Seeley Named CEO of College Sports Commission
MLB Executive Brian Seeley Named CEO of College Sports Commission originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The landscape of college athletics took a historic turn Friday. With the approval of the House settlement, the news of Bryan Seeley taking over as CEO of the newly formed College Sports Commission followed. Advertisement Seeley, who was Major League Baseball's executive vice president of legal and operations, is expected to play a pivotal role in reshaping the enforcement framework of college sports. Sources told ESPN's Pete Thamel and Jeff Passan that Seeley had been a top target for weeks, and his hiring was formalized following the settlement's approval. He is expected to earn a seven-figure salary in his new role, making him one of the most influential figures in the evolving college athletics model. Seeley brings extensive legal and investigative experience to the position. He led MLB's Department of Investigations since 2014 and later oversaw compliance and security. His resume includes prosecuting federal white-collar crimes as a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and a law degree from Harvard. The Commission will replace the NCAA as the primary enforcement body for most rules. It will oversee compliance with new regulations surrounding revenue sharing, NIL deals, and roster limits. The NCAA will retain limited oversight on academics and certain other areas, but won't have nearly as much power as it previously had. According to a formal release, Seeley is tasked with building out investigative and enforcement teams, managing operations, and handling stakeholder relationships. He was selected by the commissioners of the Power Four conferences, who praised his integrity and leadership in a joint statement. Advertisement 'Bryan brings unwavering integrity and a wealth of relevant experience,' the commissioners wrote. 'We look forward to his leadership as we transition into this new era of college sports.' The CSC will work alongside partners such as LBi Software and Deloitte. Deloitte will manage the NIL clearinghouse, called NIL Go, a platform designed to verify athlete NIL deals and ensure they are legitimate business agreements rather than recruiting incentives. Related: Judge Approves Landmark NCAA Settlement, Paving Way for Revenue Sharing The enforcement is expected to be faster and more decisive than under the NCAA. Investigations will aim to conclude within 45 days. The CEO will have authority to impose penalties and make final determinations on rule violations. Advertisement With a fast-approaching timeline, direct revenue sharing with athletes will begin July 1. Related: Michigan Running Back's Groundbreaking NIL Deal Redefines College Football Seeley's leadership arrives at a critical moment with college sports entering an uncharted territory. The hope is the CSC can restore order to what has been widely referred to as the 'wild, wild West' of college athletics. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
