Group of 10 athletic directors in charge of enforcing new rules under college sports lawsuit
Ten athletic directors are taking on the biggest lift in college sports, figuring out how to enforce new rules that will come into play when terms of the landmark $2.8 billion antitrust settlement reconfiguring their industry go into effect this summer.
The NCAA and five conferences named as defendants in the House settlement on Wednesday revealed a list of the ADs on the Settlement Implementation Committee, along with the tasks they're being asked to tackle for the rollout of a new system that will go into effect July 1, assuming a federal judge approves the settlement after a hearing on April 7.
The 10 athletic directors on the committee are: Trev Alberts, Texas A&M Scott Barnes, Oregon State; Mitch Barnhart, Kentucky; J Batt, Georgia Tech; Ross Bjork, Ohio State; Pat Chun, Washington; John Cunningham, Cincinnati; Graham Neff, Clemson; Anne McCoy, Washington State; and Desiree Reed-Francois, Arizona.
Their main tasks include: Creating a digital platform for universities to report payments to athletes to make sure they comply with a cap of up to $20.5 million per school; creating a system that ensures third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) deals are legitimate — i.e., not pay-for-play, and worth 'fair market value": and creating a system to enforce the rules and deliver sanctions for schools and individuals that violate them.
The so-called 'cap management' platform will be run by LBi software, which has built similar systems for Major League Baseball and the NBA.
The audit and financial consulting firm Deloitte will run a system that evaluates NIL deals worth more than $600. Those deals, by terms of the settlement, are subject to scrutiny by this newly created enforcement body. Plaintiffs' attorneys have argued there is ample data to place a fair market value on what athletes provide to ensure they are actually being paid for services and not simply to enroll in a school.
Among the group's toughest chores will be finding appropriate sanctions for those who violate the rules.
One of the NCAA's biggest weaknesses over the decades was how long it took to investigate and eventually penalize programs and coaches who ran afoul of recruiting and academic rules. This group isn't expected to have the power to place programs on probation but will likely be able to fine programs and coaches — and also reduce the amount they're able to offer in revenue-sharing.
With the April 7 hearing for approval of the settlement nearing, dissenting voices about the sprawling settlement are growing louder.
One concern is that restricting the amount players can earn via some measure of fair market value could lead to new lawsuits arguing their earning ability is still being restricted. The NCAA and the conferences are in favor of federal legislation that would subject colleges to the same set of rules and also potentially provide the NCAA with an antitrust exemption to avoid some of those issues.
'I fear that rules meant to create stability for college athletics are being challenged every day in the courts, and this is an area in which we need your help,' Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh told a House subcommittee Tuesday in a hearing about NIL.
___
Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
Power conference commissioners voice confidence in House settlement: ‘Our schools want rules'
The leaders of college sports' most powerful conferences voiced their confidence in the recently approved House settlement Monday, shepherding in a new era of college athletics in which schools can begin directly paying college athletes on July 1. 'The decision (to approve the settlement) on Friday is a significant step forward toward building long-term stability for college sports while protecting the system from bad actors seeking to exploit confusion and uncertainty,' SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said. Advertisement The newly formed College Sports Commission (CSC) held a news conference Monday morning featuring commissioners of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC. Established in the wake of Friday's approval of the House settlement, the CSC will oversee the implementation and enforcement of settlement terms, shifting much of the responsibility away from the NCAA. Bryan Seeley, the former head of investigations for Major League Baseball, has been announced as CEO and will report to a board comprised of the power conference commissioners. Those commissioners addressed a settlement that intends to reshape the college sports industry and install guardrails on name, image and likeness (NIL) payments that have become unregulated and sparked repeated legal challenges in recent years. 'Ultimately, it is incumbent upon everyone involved in college sports … to make the terms of this settlement work. We must be committed and embrace both the realities and opportunities ahead,' said Sankey, who acknowledged that there will be 'challenges and growing pains.' 'While this settlement does not solve every issue, it establishes a solid foundation for stability and a sustainable future,' Sankey said. The CSC has been tasked with oversight of the settlement's new revenue-sharing pool, which will be capped at roughly $20.5 million per school in the first year, as well as third-party NIL deals via the new NIL Go clearinghouse. NIL Go, which will evaluate any third-party NIL payments worth at least $600, is expected to be up and running this week and will determine whether those deals represent a valid business purpose and fall within an approved range of compensation. Those that don't fit the criteria will be flagged and forced to be adjusted or taken to arbitration. The aim is to stamp out the unchecked 'pay-for-play' deals popularized by NIL collectives. Advertisement The power conference commissioners did not offer specifics Monday on what the enforcement and penalties might look like under the CSC, but ACC commissioner Jim Phillips stated that Seeley will have a lot of input on those areas moving forward. Even prior to Friday's approval, there has been no shortage of questions or doubts from those inside and outside college sports about the viability of the settlement terms and the CSC's ability to enforce these new rules. 'It all sounds great in theory, but how will it actually work?' one power conference athletic director recently posited to The Athletic. The commissioners made clear in no uncertain terms Monday that they expect strict adherence and buy-in from their member schools. 'It's progress over perfection,' Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark said. 'Our schools want rules and we're providing rules and we will be governed by those rules. And if you break those rules, the ramifications will be punitive.' Part of that process includes 'participation agreements' in which the schools agree to comply with the terms of the settlement and not seek legal action, regardless of any differences and discrepancies with state laws. Yormark, who said that the agreement 'codifies the rules of settlement,' described it as a 'work in progress' within the Big 12 but one that has received no pushback and that he plans to execute in short order. Sankey stated at the SEC spring meetings last month that all 16 conference members approved of the agreement. 'We want oversight, we want guardrails, we want structure. (Administrators and coaches) don't have the luxury to just say that in meeting rooms. They don't have the luxury to just be anonymous sources,' Sankey said. 'They have a responsibility to make what they've sought, what they've asked for, to make it work.' Advertisement Buy-in from schools and conferences won't necessarily prevent continued legal battles from outside parties — part of the potential challenges that were referenced. There could be future lawsuits or complaints on the basis of Title IX or antitrust violations. (The commissioners did state that decisions on how the revenue sharing pool will be distributed will be made on a school-by-school basis.) To that end, the NCAA and power conferences, as part of the College Sports Commission, will continue to lobby Congress for things like antitrust exemptions and federal legislation that preempts state laws and addresses athlete employment status. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said he hopes the settlement will provide a foundation that encourages Congress to take action, and Sankey acknowledged that he and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua played golf with President Donald Trump on Sunday to discuss some of these same issues. There is no timetable for if or when Congress will take action, but lobbying efforts will continue in Washington, D.C.'I don't know if there is an exact timeline, but there is a sense of urgency, for sure,' said Yormark. 'I don't think we have to sell them on the topic, we just have to land in the right place that works for both parties on the Hill, and I think we're getting closer.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful' bill creates a $5 billion tax shelter for private school donors
The budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act, ' contains an unconventional provision establishing an unprecedented tax shelter designed to shift resources from public schools to wealthy people and private schools. The provision allocates $5 billion a year in federal tax credits for donors to organizations that provide private and religious school vouchers. While the bill cuts benefits for other charitable donations, it triples the tax benefit for private school voucher donations. This unique dollar-for-dollar rebate is something no other charity has ever gotten from the federal government. Other donors may be taken aback to learn that policymakers have singled out private schools for a reward three times larger than what can be received for gifts to pediatric cancer research, flood clean-up or assisting veterans exposed to chemicals. More alarming still, this provision creates a profitable tax shelter for wealthy people who agree to help funnel public funds into private schools. This is because rich donors will avoid the capital gains tax entirely if they make a gift of stock. Savvy tax advisors will instruct stockholders to avoid selling and to instead donate those holdings, getting a one-for-one return from the federal government — while avoiding hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in capital gains taxes. This is the quintessential definition of a tax shelter, encouraging affluent people with no interest in school vouchers to direct contributions this way, not out of conviction but for profit. Usually, when policymakers do this, it is an inadvertent by-product of hasty legislative decisions, not an intentional giveaway. This, too, is a norm being broken with this bill. The provision expands vouchers nationwide, even in states — such as Kentucky, Nebraska and Colorado — where voters recently rejected vouchers at the ballot box. American voters have actually said no to vouchers in every state where they've been put on the ballot, which may be why voucher proponents are sneaking a big expansion into a must-pass federal bill. Vouchers, in addition to being unpopular, expensive. My organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, estimates that this provision alone would as drafted reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next 10 years, or by $67 billion if it is extended beyond its four-year expiration date, as Republicans would likely attempt to do. Because state income taxes largely piggyback on federal law, this provision would reduce state revenue by between $459 million and $1.1 billion over the decade, depending on extension. Of the 10-year state and federal tax cuts from this provision, between $2.2 billion and $5.3 billion would be in the form of capital gains tax avoidance, depending on extension. Had this provision been in effect in 2021, for example, Elon Musk could have cut his capital gains tax bill by $690 million. In all, while cutting tax benefits for charities across the board, the reconciliation bill creates an unprecedented giveaway that would enrich the wealthiest Americans, particularly those whose income comes from stock. It would weaken public budgets and public schools, siphoning money to private schools that are allowed to reject many students. Combined with other enormous cuts to public programs and tax cuts for the rich, this is an untenable combination. Amy Hanauer is executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
