Appeal alleging House v. NCAA settlement ‘ignored' Title IX will pause back pay plans
The watershed settlement, approved late Friday night by federal judge Claudia Wilken, has been years in the making. Last October Wilken granted the settlement preliminary approval, then waded through hundreds of objections filed over the ensuing eight months. Many of those objections were related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and requires schools to offer equitable opportunities to women, including in sports.
Advertisement
Wilken was unmoved by those objections, repeatedly saying the antitrust case had nothing to do with Title IX. But she did leave the door open for future lawsuits based on Title IX targeting how future payments from schools to athletes will be made.
The appeal will not impact revenue sharing — slated to start July 1 for all schools that have opted in — but will pause the back-pay damages portion of the settlement.
John Clune, the attorney who represents the eight women filing the appeal, said he also filed an objection during the settlement adjudication process but that nothing came of it.
'We felt like we were standing on the table waving our arms that somebody had to address this issue, but none of the parties involved wanted to address it, and the courts didn't want to address it,' Clune told , saying Title IX was 'deliberately ignored.'
Advertisement
'This was the only option.'
The NCAA and lawyers for the plaintiffs in House v. NCAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The eight women represented in the lawsuit are Kacie Breeding Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold from the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson from the University of Virginia.
The appeal argues that the $2.8 billion in damages set to be distributed to former athletes who couldn't earn NIL (name, image and likeness) money before 2021 violates Title IX because female athletes will be paid less than football and men's basketball players.
Advertisement
Clune said the settlement suggests 'schools would have paid male athletes over 90 percent of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn't apply. If Nike wants to do that, that is their choice. If the school, or a conference acting on the school's behalf tries to do that, they are violating the law.'
'They can either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds,' he said. 'But they can't do both.'
Clune said his clients 'support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of $1.1 billion. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error … Congress has expressly rejected efforts to prioritize benefits to football and basketball from Title IX's requirements.'
Clune said the Title IX implications for future payouts are still to be determined. In the meantime, the appeal process is a 'slow burn,' with a briefing schedule and oral arguments likely to be set in the next nine to 12 months.
Advertisement
'It wouldn't surprise me if we see lawsuits against schools for those (rev share) payouts at some point,' he said.
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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's the next 'arms race' in college sports? Finding ways to legally exceed new rev-share cap
Tennessee athletic director Danny White faced a decision this year: Remain with apparel partner Nike or move to a new brand, adidas. He considered plenty of factors in the decision, such as quality of the gear and overall financial terms. But one, perhaps, stood above the rest: How much name, image and likeness (NIL) support would an apparel company give to Tennessee's athletes? 'NIL was right up there,' White told Yahoo Sports in a recent interview. 'We are in a very competitive space. It was at the forefront of my mind.' Tennessee announced on Wednesday a return to adidas, a brand the university used during a 20-year run that ended in 2014. The brand and school struck a 10-year contract that is 'one of the biggest apparel deals in the history of college sports,' according to White, likely putting its value at at least $10 million annually in product and cash. At the heart of the deal is expected to also be one of the most lucrative NIL components in the history of collegiate apparel deals, described by one of the company's vice presidents as 'establishing a new standard for investment in NIL.' In short, the players will get a piece of the $100 million-plus pie — in a significant way, too, and, for some of them, immediately. Adidas says it is already working to strike individual deals with Tennessee athletes during this school year — months before the new apparel contract starts next July. Once the partnership begins, the company will offer what it calls 'unprecedented NIL opportunities' for UT athletes across all 20 sports. 'The arms race was originally about facilities,' said Chris McGuire, adidas vice president of sports marketing, North America. 'Now it's gone to rev-share and NIL. We want to make sure we provide opportunities to our partners that are competitive in the marketplace so they'll have competitive teams on the field.' Tennessee's apparel partnership is the latest weapon in the new recruiting battlefield: Finding creative ways to legally exceed the revenue-share cap by providing athletes with legitimate third-party endorsement and commercial deals. 'This is the first one' The adidas deal won't be the last apparel contract structured in this way, experts believe. Several power programs remain in negotiations with apparel partners as their current contracts come to an end, including LSU, Penn State and USC. In fact, more than 20 power conference programs have apparel deals set to expire in 2026 and 2027. McGuire acknowledges that this 'model,' if it works as intended, will be used elsewhere. 'This is the first one,' he said. There are plenty more weapons, so to speak, that schools are using to increase the value of their rosters, including multimedia rights partners, various corporate sponsors and even reinvented booster collectives — all supplying some level of above-the-cap athlete compensation. The revenue-share cap this year (July 2025-June 2026) is $20.5 million, the max each school can distribute to their athletes. But schools are able to facilitate for their athletes individual third-party endorsement and commercial deals that, if approved through the new College Sports Commission enforcement process, are not included in the cap number. This has created a new recruiting landscape where many schools, at first reliant on their collectives to drive athlete compensation, are now shifting to what they believe are more legitimate entities whose athlete deals can more easily gain the approval of the College Sports Commission. There's a brewing bidding war unfolding among multimedia rights and apparel companies jockeying to offer the best NIL-centric contracts to gain university partnerships. Many schools are employing multimedia rights (MMR) partners and marketing agencies — perhaps those that once operated as collectives — to use corporate sponsors to direct their distribution to athletes instead of to the school, says Tommy Gray, CEO of Altius, a company that provides dozens of schools with consultation and strategic planning. "For example, some are going to their corporate sponsors and saying 20% of your spend must be deployed in an athlete marketing fund so we can distribute it to our athletes," Gray told Yahoo Sports in the spring. "It may be impermissible to commit that money to athletes in writing, but that doesn't mean you can't tell athletes that if they do these things, you are confident they will get X amount of dollars. There are a lot of ways to do it if you want to push the envelope." Apparel companies fill a similar void in a similar way, except they would directly strike deals with athletes. There's no middle man necessary. Despite being deemed an 'affiliated entity' of a school — this designation heightens the enforcement arm's standard — would adidas, Nike or Under Armour, all longtime legitimate national brands, really see their athlete deals rejected? What about Learfield, JMI and Playfly Sports? They are longtime school multimedia rights partners with the capability to facilitate deals with athletes among any of their thousands of corporate businesses and brands. "There are a lot of places where the MMR partner, directly or indirectly, is supplying millions to athletes," Gray says. 'Who gets to tell Learfield it's not OK to give $5 million a year to athletes? Who gets to go in and say, 'That's not permissible.'' Paia LaPalombara, a former Ohio State athletic administrator who joined last year the Indiana law firm Church Church Hittle + Antrim, says partnering with an MMR or apparel brand is likely the best way for schools to 'exceed the cap without falling under that fair market value' standard. Will new deals pass muster? Multimedia rights partners are already paying schools millions in licensing agreements to sell their intellectual property, such as marks, logos, etc. Corporate sponsors want both — the marks plus the athletes — for the most lucrative NIL deals, says Craig Sloan, the CEO of Playfly Sports. 'The one that's going to be tested the most is a student-athlete appearing in uniform in a campaign. What is that value?' Sloan said. 'We do have evidence that shows the use of IP will enhance a brand's perception with consumers. The data supports the idea that if you're going to come in and sponsor our Auburn program, it makes sense to do it with a student-athlete.' Sloan says Playfly doesn't guarantee schools a certain amount of NIL for their athletes, but, moreso, 'shares a vision' with schools on a 'need number' for NIL. Learfield is approaching it in a similar fashion. CEO Cole Gahagan says the company struck athlete brand deals of more than $135 million last fiscal year. 'Now that salary caps have been in place, there is increased pressure to find more opportunities to create more events for athletes,' Gahagan said. 'When we have dedicated resources on the ground on campus — sales people dedicated to NIL, NIL activation coordinator and NIL content producer — we see the greatest and most NIL deal-making output at our properties.' Learfield has recently announced new NIL-related partnerships with several power programs, including Texas, Georgia and Oklahoma — all deals billed as a way to 'unlock new revenue-generating opportunities' for athletes. These collaborations will operate independently from the university as marketing and NIL agencies to connect athletes with corporate sponsors to 'earn income beyond traditional revenue-sharing models,' according to one of the releases. Playfly, meanwhile, struck a 15-year, $515 million deal with Texas A&M earlier this summer, believed to be one of the most lucrative multimedia rights contracts in the history of college athletics and one that offers NIL components. Kentucky announced a similar move just this week, resigning with multimedia partner JMI in a deal where the company will create an "in-house NIL collective" to help facilitate athlete brand deals and ensure each passes through the new enforcement process. 'How quickly will collectives start to fade away or become less important? Because the sustainable model is athletes inking opportunities for producing content, activations, likeness in campaigns,' Sloan said. 'It's pretty clear it's not going to be a collective and booster giving someone a bunch of money.' But collectives received a sort-of lifeline last month, when a legal threat from attorneys forced the College Sports Commission to re-evaluate guidance that would have prohibited most booster-collective deals with athletes. The enforcement arm is determining the legitimacy of third-party deals based mostly on two standards. NIL deals have to meet the standard of (1) having a 'valid business purpose' and (2) falling within a compensation range created by Deloitte. The first of those — involving the prohibition of many collective deals — fell victim to the legal challenge, opening a path for collectives to continue to operate in a similar way, but not exactly the same, as they previously did. The second standard — range of compensation — serves as the CSC's backstop, at least until it is challenged legally as well. 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. It factors in a player's social media following, athletic performance, the school's marketplace and location, etc. Will the CSC really deny athlete deals from big brands and apparel companies? 'At the end of the day,' said Sloan, 'a person not on campus, not in our communities is going to have a difficult time setting our market rate.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Crackdown on players faking injuries, tweak to video review verbiage among changes in college game
Officials will be cracking down on college football players who feign injuries, the number of overtime timeouts will be reduced and referees will use different verbiage when announcing the results of video reviews. Those are among the changes for the 2025 season, the National Football Foundation announced Wednesday in its annual summary of rules changes. Combatting the practice of players faking injuries to stop the game clock was an offseason priority for the NCAA Football Rules Committee. Beginning this season, if a player on the field presents as injured after the ball is spotted for the next play, that player's team will be charged a timeout. If the team does not have timeouts remaining, a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty will be assessed. The player also must remain out of the game for at least one down, even if that team is granted a timeout, and may not return until receiving the approval of a medical professional. Feigning injuries, sometimes at the coach's instruction, has concerned the rules committee in recent years. It's a tactic defenses use to slow down tempo offenses or as a way for an offense to avoid a delay-of-game penalty or get an extra timeout. In overtime, each team will continue to be allowed one timeout in both the first and second extra periods. After the first two overtime periods, each team will be allowed only one timeout for the remainder of the game. Previously, a team was allowed one timeout in each overtime period regardless of how many were required to decide a winner. After video reviews, if the ruling on the field is not overturned, referees will announce that the call is 'upheld.' Previously the referee would say the call is 'confirmed' if video showed the call was correct or 'stands' if there was no clear and obvious evidence to overturn the ruling. If the call is changed following the review, the referee will describe the reason. Some other changes: — On kick returns, if any player on the receiving team holds out his arms to make a 'T' signal during the kick, the team gives up its right to make a return and the play will be whistled dead. — Any defensive player within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage (stationary or not) may not make quick and abrupt or exaggerated actions that simulate action at the snap in an obvious attempt to make the offense commit a penalty. The offense will be held to the same standard as any pre-snap movement that simulates action at the snap is a foul on the offense for a false start. — The defense may not have more than 11 players on the field when the ball is snapped. The infraction is treated as a live-ball foul and is a 5-yard penalty. If this occurs after the two-minute timeout in either half, the offense will have the option to reset the game clock back to the time displayed at the snap. The game clock will then restart on the next snap. — Coach-to-player communications through the helmet will be allowed in the Football Championship Subdivision. — A player attempting to recover a loose ball is added to the list of defenseless players. — All forms of gun violence are not permitted and simulating the firing of a weapon is an automatic unsportsmanlike foul. This year, if a player simulates the act of brandishing a weapon, it is considered an unsportsmanlike act. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Crackdown on players faking injuries, tweak to video review verbiage among changes in college game
Officials will be cracking down on college football players who feign injuries, the number of overtime timeouts will be reduced and referees will use different verbiage when announcing the results of video reviews. Those are among the changes for the 2025 season, the National Football Foundation announced Wednesday in its annual summary of rules changes. Combatting the practice of players faking injuries to stop the game clock was an offseason priority for the NCAA Football Rules Committee. Beginning this season, if a player on the field presents as injured after the ball is spotted for the next play, that player's team will be charged a timeout. If the team does not have timeouts remaining, a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty will be assessed. The player also must remain out of the game for at least one down, even if that team is granted a timeout, and may not return until receiving the approval of a medical professional. Feigning injuries, sometimes at the coach's instruction, has concerned the rules committee in recent years. It's a tactic defenses use to slow down tempo offenses or as a way for an offense to avoid a delay-of-game penalty or get an extra timeout. In overtime, each team will continue to be allowed one timeout in both the first and second extra periods. After the first two overtime periods, each team will be allowed only one timeout for the remainder of the game. Previously, a team was allowed one timeout in each overtime period regardless of how many were required to decide a winner. After video reviews, if the ruling on the field is not overturned, referees will announce that the call is 'upheld.' Previously the referee would say the call is 'confirmed' if video showed the call was correct or 'stands' if there was no clear and obvious evidence to overturn the ruling. If the call is changed following the review, the referee will describe the reason. Some other changes: — On kick returns, if any player on the receiving team holds out his arms to make a 'T' signal during the kick, the team gives up its right to make a return and the play will be whistled dead. — Any defensive player within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage (stationary or not) may not make quick and abrupt or exaggerated actions that simulate action at the snap in an obvious attempt to make the offense commit a penalty. The offense will be held to the same standard as any pre-snap movement that simulates action at the snap is a foul on the offense for a false start. — The defense may not have more than 11 players on the field when the ball is snapped. The infraction is treated as a live-ball foul and is a 5-yard penalty. If this occurs after the two-minute timeout in either half, the offense will have the option to reset the game clock back to the time displayed at the snap. The game clock will then restart on the next snap. — Coach-to-player communications through the helmet will be allowed in the Football Championship Subdivision. — A player attempting to recover a loose ball is added to the list of defenseless players. — All forms of gun violence are not permitted and simulating the firing of a weapon is an automatic unsportsmanlike foul. This year, if a player simulates the act of brandishing a weapon, it is considered an unsportsmanlike act. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
