logo
The road ahead after the NCAA settlement comes with risk, reward and warnings

The road ahead after the NCAA settlement comes with risk, reward and warnings

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Two days after the approval of a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, thousands of athletic directors and department personnel traveled to Orlando, Florida, for the annual National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention.
The hot topic, of course, was the influx of changes both threatening and beneficial for schools across the country. According to NCAA President Charlie Baker, approval of the settlement may be the biggest change in college sports history. On July 1, schools that opt in to the settlement will embark on a new era of revenue sharing, changing the game both on and off the field.
Rewards
A handful of convention attendees breathed a sigh of relief on Friday night when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken announced her decision. It's a quick turnaround and a period of trial and error is anticipated, but Division I athletic directors welcomed the news.
'The best thing is clarity,' UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond said. 'The best thing about July 1 is we now have clarity on the rules of engagement, what we're allowed to do, how we can move forward. Does it solve everything? No, it doesn't. But when you have clarity, you can operate more efficiently and effectively.'
Kentucky AD Mitch Barnhart was relieved to get the agreement in hand.
'We've been trying for so long to be part of this,' Barnhart said. 'Maybe, just maybe, on July 1, we'll sort of all know where we are on this one.'
Barnhart added that the College Sports Commission, an entity that will enforce compliance and set market value for NIL deals, will be a major positive.
'The College Sports Commission and the way that is coming around gives us guardrails and enforcement in a way that we can move forward collectively, together, for college sports,' Barnhart said.
Risks
In a settlement where high-revenue sport athletes have the most to gain, Title IX has emerged as a topic to watch.
The 75-15-5-5 formula has emerged as a popular revenue-sharing formula, meaning that schools are likely to allocate 75% of revenue-share funds to football, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and the remaining 5% dispersed to other programs. If a school spent the full $20.5 million allowed this coming year, that would mean a breakdown of $15.4 million for football, $3.1 million for men's hoops and about $1 million each for women's hoops and everyone else.
Montoya Ho-Song, an attorney for Ackerman LLP who specializes in higher education issues, expects Title IX lawsuits to come, just like one filed this week by eight female athletes. The area has shifted again under President Donald Trump, with guidance suggesting the federal government won't hold schools to rigid requirements to distribute proceeds equitably between men and women.
'There are definitely going to be legal challenges related to this revenue-sharing model. I always tell my clients, look, your student athletes' perceptions are their reality. If they think that they are not being treated equally, they will raise those concerns,' Ho-Song said.
She warned that the 75-15-5-5 formula shouldn't be a one size fits all and suggested dividing revenue based on how it comes in isn't a valid argument. The majority of rev-share funds going to football and basketball programs, especially when coupled with losing records, will inevitably stir the pot.
'Just because there is a 75-15-5-5 budget breakdown, that does not mean that that's going to work on all campuses,' she said. 'The analysis under Title IX is making sure that it is available and everyone has the same type of access to non-grant funds. So, you do have to figure out a way to creatively divvy up those funds, but always keep in mind, if someone feels as if they're not being treated correctly, then that is always a legal risk.'
Warnings
Attorney Mit Winter, a college sports law specialist with Kennyhertz Perry, said it is paramount that athletic departments present an organized, united front.
Since the launch of name, image, and likeness compensation four years ago, Winter said, he has encountered several instances where athletic departments are giving conflicting statements and numbers to current and prospective athletes. That can lead to legal headaches, too.
'You need to have a plan that everyone is on board with and that everyone knows,' Winter said. 'As a school, you don't want to have a situation where five different people are talking to an athlete about how much they're going to pay him or her. I think that needs to be much more formalized. The coach, assistant coaches, GM, everybody needs to be on the same page.'
St. Bonaventure men's basketball general manager Adrian Wojnarowski and coach Mark Schmidt know exactly what their roles are — and aren't.
'I will never talk to a player or a parent or an agent about playing time, their role,' Wojnarowski said. 'During the season, if someone is disappointed in playing time and they call, the only conversation I'm having with a family member is supporting the head coach, supporting the coaching staff. And in the end, that's a conversation for their son to have with the head coach. Then economically, we have to have one clear message in negotiations and finances.'
Impacts
There are concerns that the revenue-sharing era will have multiple impacts on college rosters.
Few athletic directors were willing to talk in any detail about plans for their campuses, but some of the moves have already begun in the search for more money to fulfill the details of the NCAA settlement: UTEP dropped women's tennis, Cal Poly discontinued swimming and diving, Marquette added women's swimming and Grand Canyon shuttered its men's volleyball program. The athletic director at Cal noted the school expects to lose about 100 athletes.
Just how many of the so-called non-revenue sports — the ones that often feed U.S. Olympic teams — will be affected is also a concern. And many programs will need to find a niche that works for them, even if that means not consistently contending for national championships.
___
AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why female athletes are challenging the NCAA's $2.8bn settlement
Why female athletes are challenging the NCAA's $2.8bn settlement

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why female athletes are challenging the NCAA's $2.8bn settlement

The NCAA settlement has given rise to worries that schools will cut so-called 'non-revenue' sports, including lacrosse, swimming or gymnastics, to fund revenue-sharing with top athletes. The NCAA settlement has given rise to worries that schools will cut so-called 'non-revenue' sports, including lacrosse, swimming or gymnastics, to fund revenue-sharing with top athletes. Photograph: C Morgan Engel/College athletes spent decades fighting for the right to make money from their name, image and likeness (NIL). In 2021, they won. Now, a $2.8bn NCAA settlement is set to compensate hundreds of thousands of current and former athletes who missed out on those earnings. But not everyone thinks the deal is fair. Eight female athletes filed an appeal this week, arguing the agreement violates Title IX, the US law banning sex-based discrimination in education. They say the way the money is divided, largely favoring football and men's basketball players, shortchanges women by more than $1bn. Advertisement Their appeal has paused all back payments, potentially delaying them for more than a year. However, the NCAA's new plan to allow schools to pay current players directly starting 1 July will still go ahead. So what does this all mean for athletes as well as the future of college sports? Here's what's going on … What is the NCAA settlement about? The NCAA agreed to pay $2.8bn to compensate athletes who were previously barred from earning income off their name, image, and likeness (NIL), including things like video game appearances, jersey sales, or social media sponsorships. The settlement covers athletes going back to 2016. Advertisement It also clears the way for a major change: beginning 1 July 2025, colleges will be allowed to directly share revenue with current players, up to $20.5 million per school per year. It's a major shift from the NCAA's traditional amateurism model, which argued that athletes should only be compensated with scholarships, not salaries or endorsement income. Who's appealing the deal and why? Eight female athletes who competed in soccer, volleyball, and track have filed an appeal. Their names include Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt) and Kate Johnson (Virginia), along with six athletes from the College of Charleston. Advertisement They argue the deal violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. Specifically, they say the settlement gives up to 90% of the money to men in football and basketball, depriving women of $1.1bn in rightful compensation. What is Title IX and how does it apply here? Title IX is a 1972 US law requiring equal access and treatment for men and women in federally funded education programs, including athletics. Colleges must offer comparable resources, scholarships and participation opportunities across men's and women's sports. The female athletes argue that since NIL bans affected both genders equally, compensation for those bans must also be equitable, and that using historical TV revenue (which favors men's sports) ignores systemic barriers women have faced in marketing and media exposure. What did the judge say about the Title IX argument? US district judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week and rejected Title IX-based objections, saying they fell outside the scope of the antitrust case. The female athletes disagree and are now asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene. What happens to the money in the meantime? Because of the appeal, no back pay will be distributed until the court rules. That delay could last several months or longer. According to the NCAA's lead attorney, the organization will continue funding the settlement pool, but the money will sit untouched until the case is resolved. Why is most of the money going to men's football and basketball players? The current payout formula is based on historical media revenue and licensing data. Because football and men's basketball generated the majority of money for schools – especially through TV contracts – those athletes stand to receive the most compensation. Advertisement Critics say that approach bakes in decades of inequality, because women were denied the same marketing exposure and investment in the first place. What are the broader concerns about this settlement? Some worry that schools will cut so-called 'non-revenue' sports – like wrestling, swimming or gymnastics – to fund revenue-sharing with top athletes. Others fear this pushes college sports closer to a professional minor league system, undermining education and competitive balance. Still others say that without clear Title IX guidance, women may continue to be marginalized even in a post-amateurism era. What happens next? The Ninth Circuit will now review the appeal. Briefs are due by 3 October, and while both sides say they'll push for speed, appeals in this court have been known to take 12 to 18 months. Until the case is resolved, no back payments will be made to athletes who played between 2016 and 2021. But the revenue-sharing era is coming, whether or not the NCAA is ready for it.

Casey Schmitt's 1st career grand slam powers Giants past Dodgers 6-2 in series opener
Casey Schmitt's 1st career grand slam powers Giants past Dodgers 6-2 in series opener

San Francisco Chronicle​

time3 hours ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Casey Schmitt's 1st career grand slam powers Giants past Dodgers 6-2 in series opener

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Logan Webb tossed seven innings of two-hit ball, Casey Schmitt hit his first career grand slam off Yoshinobu Yamamoto and the San Francisco Giants defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers 6-2 on Friday night in the series opener between the NL West's top two teams. Webb (6-5) allowed two runs, struck out four and walked three for his first win since May 16 against the Athletics. He twice struck out Shohei Ohtani, who was hitless in four at-bats. Schmitt's grand slam traveled 423 feet to left-center with two outs in the third, snapping a 1-1 tie. Yamamoto sandwiched walks to Jung Hoo Lee and Heliot Ramos around two strikeouts before walking Wilmer Flores to load the bases and set up Schmitt. Willy Adames homered for the Giants in the first. In the second, Webb walked Freddie Freeman and Will Smith back-to-back to open the inning before Max Muncy's fielder's choice grounder to first and Andy Pages' sacrifice fly scored Smith. The Dodgers added another run on Teoscar Hernández's homer off Webb in the seventh. The teams are meeting for the first time this season, and it's the latest they've gone in a season without playing each other since 1999. The Dodgers were 9-4 against the Giants last year, including 6-1 at home. Key moment Giants catcher Andrew Knizer had his first hit and first homer of the season off Justin Wrobleski in the eighth. The ball went off the wall in center. Key stat The Giants rapped out 10 hits, including three by Dominic Smith. Up next ___

Agustín Ramírez homers twice to power Marlins past Nationals 11-9
Agustín Ramírez homers twice to power Marlins past Nationals 11-9

San Francisco Chronicle​

time3 hours ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Agustín Ramírez homers twice to power Marlins past Nationals 11-9

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rookie Agustín Ramírez hit two home runs and Eric Wagaman had three RBIs to help the Miami Marlins hand the Washington Nationals their sixth straight loss, 11-9 on Friday night in a game that included a rain delay of more than two hours. Ramírez hit a solo shot off Nationals starter Mitchell Parker (4-7) in the first for a 1-0 lead and then hit his 10th of the season leading off a four-run third as Miami took a 6-0 lead. It was Ramírez's second multihomer game after hitting two solo shots in a 7-6 loss to Seattle on April 27. Wagaman had an RBI double and Dane Myers added a two-run double as Miami built the six-run advantage. CJ Abrams reached on an infield hit and James Wood followed with his 17th homer to get the Nationals within 6-2 after three. Fortes and Xavier Edwards had RBI singles in the fifth following a delay of 2 hours, 14 minutes for an 8-2 lead. Wood hit a two-run double and Nathaniel Lowe, Alex Call and Keibert Ruiz followed with RBI singles as Washington scored five times in the seventh to pull within 8-7. Miami answered with Wagaman's two-run single and Connor Norby's RBI groundout in the eighth. Parker allowed six runs and eight hits in 3 1/3 innings. Jackson Rutledge got the final two outs in the fourth before the second delay and then allowed two runs. Jose A. Ferrer was tagged for three runs on four hits in an inning. Miami has won three of four against Washington this season. Up next Miami had not announced who will start Saturday's game opposite Washington RHP Trevor Williams (3-7, 5.91). ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store