NIL saga continues: NCAA v. House settlement reaches final verdict
Just one day following the implementation of the Texas bill allowing athletes over the age of 17 to receive contracts from universities such as Texas A&M in the state for their name, image, and likeness, the House v. NCAA settlement was officially approved on Friday evening.
For context, this lawsuit has been ongoing for approximately five years. After one year of constant discussions, disagreements, and revisions, the document was finalized by the United States District Judge Claudia Wilken. The settlement approval allows student-athletes and schools to exchange millions for the first time in the history of collegiate athletics.
Advertisement
After the NCAA and the House voted to settle the suit in 2024, it was believed that there was no end in sight for the suit. However, the approval will provide $2.8 billion for players over the last 10 years who have missed opportunities to reap the benefits of their name, image, and likeness.
There will be limits regarding the number of players a roster can hold per sport, however. The number of players available to be on active rosters is one of the main difficulties that has interfered with the bill not being approved up to this point. Here are the proposed updated numbers for roster spots at universities, according to Pete Nakos of On3 Sports.
Heading into the 2025 campaign, universities will officially be allowed to share around $20.5 million of the school revenue with their respective college athletes.
Advertisement
The battle has been won, but the war has just begun. That being, the ongoing conflicts that we see from different aspects of collegiate athletics. While the bill approval allows the wrongs to be corrected for those athletes who missed the opportunity to capitalize on NIL, it raises some eyebrows in an era filled with schools desperate to bring the best the country has to offer to their programs, no matter the cost.
Now, programs being forced to have roster limits will reportedly cut around 5,000 NCAA athletes. That number is substantial, compared to what many believed when the settlement first arose. Between the NIL movement and the transfer portal, there is no questioning the astronomical impact this era of college athletics is already having.
What is next? Well, that remains to be seen. There are still numerous unanswered questions that need to be addressed. According to CBS Sports, Southeastern Conference Commissioner Greg Sankey commented on the announcement made on Friday evening.
"The approval of the House settlement agreement represents a significant milestone for the meaningful support of our student-athletes and a pivotal step toward establishing long-term sustainability for college sports, two of the Southeastern Conference's top priorties. As the journey to modernize collegiate sports continues, we remain focused on identifying and implementing innovative opportunities for our student-athletes across all sports while maintaining the core values that make collegiate athletics uniquely meaningful."
The development of collegiate athletics over the next couple of years will be intriguing to witness, especially with the implementation of funds for athletes and the thousands of roster cuts anticipated for players in the upcoming year.
Advertisement
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.
This article originally appeared on Aggies Wire: NCAA v. House settlement reaches approval ahead of new athletics year
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Republicans draft competing budget as Senate nears deal with Hobbs
Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror Arizona lawmakers are at odds again, but this time it's the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate who can't agree on how to forge the state budget. Creating the state budget — deciding how much to allocate to departments, projects and initiatives or whether to fund them at all — is the most important job that legislators do each year, and the only thing they are constitutionally required to complete. Before the group of bills that will become the state budget becomes law, it must be approved by a majority in both the Arizona Senate and House — which are both controlled by Republicans — and garner a signature from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. In recent history, budget negotiations in Arizona have occurred behind closed doors among the governor and legislative leaders in the House and Senate. But this year is different, with Hobbs and Republican leaders in the Senate nearing a deal after weeks of negotiations. GOP leaders in the House, who haven't been involved in those talks, have responded by drafting their own budget, which was introduced late Wednesday afternoon. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'This is a sound, disciplined budget that delivers safe communities, strong families, and a government that lives within its means,' House Speaker Steve Montenegro said in a Wednesday evening statement. 'We're raising pay for our state law enforcement officers, reducing tuition at public universities, fully funding school choice, fixing critical infrastructure and roads, and protecting taxpayers. Our budget reins in government and puts it back to work for the people it serves.' But the spending package, which is chock-full of proposals that are unlikely to pass muster with Hobbs, will never become law. Instead, it is better viewed as a way for House Republicans to lay down a marker in order to force Hobbs and the Senate to move closer to the House's proposal. Republican political consultant Barrett Marson said House GOP leaders are hoping to demonstrate that the chamber can pass a spending plan in order to get leverage in the negotiations. 'Sometimes there's just gotta be movement to unstick a sticky situation,' he said. 'The House has an equal voice. And unlike previous years when one or both chambers had a go-it-alone ethos, the House isn't looking to be draconian or anything. They want something more responsible.' Marson said a major point of contention between the House and Senate is what to do with the budget surplus. While the Senate and Hobbs have settled on copying the novel process from 2023, in which each lawmaker was given a pot of money from the surplus that was used to fund whatever initiatives they wanted, the House wants to negotiate all of those details and not surrender control of that money to individual legislators. During a House Rules Committee meeting earlier Wednesday afternoon, House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, of Laveen, said he was disappointed in the way the budgeting process was happening this year. 'We should not be moving forward with a House Republican-only budget that is destined to fail,' he said. 'This will not get signed by the governor. I don't even think it's going to pass out of the Senate.' De Los Santos even questioned whether the proposal would get enough votes to pass through the House, where Republicans hold 33 of the chamber's 60 seats. 'What we do know is that this is not a negotiated, bipartisan deal in good faith,' he said. 'House Democrats are at the table negotiating in a bipartisan way with the executive, with our (Senate) counterparts across the courtyard. That is the way to get things done in shared government.' But Republican Rep. Neal Carter, of San Tan Valley, replied that the work of governing should be done transparently, instead of in private — and that it should allow for input from the public. 'As a Republican, I stand for full transparency and not for back-room deals or negotiated budgets with parties that are somehow outside of this public process,' Carter said. The House Republican budget, introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Livingston, proposes significant changes in how federal money allocated to the state, but not restricted to specific uses, is controlled. The billions in unrestricted federal funds, currently controlled by the governor, would shift to legislative control and could only be spent on essential government services. The House GOP's budget proposal would also place new restrictions and monitoring requirements on entitlement programs, like the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System — the state's Medicaid program — and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps. Both programs would be monitored on at least a quarterly basis for participants who don't qualify, to be kicked off. And any participants who win $3,000 or more through gambling or playing the state lottery and don't report those winnings would become ineligible. It would also give the Arizona Department of Economic Security the authority to screen recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for illegal drug use and would ban anyone who tests positive for drugs not prescribed to them from the cash assistance program for a year. House Republicans also intend to increase the percentage of money spent in K-12 classrooms, as opposed to on administration; to decrease tuition for students attending the state's three public universities; and to ban those universities from using public or private money to give scholarships to students without legal immigration status. Hobbs introduced her budget proposal, which includes a much different list of priorities, back in January. Shortly after that, Livingston and Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, panned her proposal for leaving out projected cost increases for programs like AHCCCS. Hobbs spokesman Christian Slater told the Arizona Mirror on Wednesday that Livingston and Gress were to blame for the House's lack of collaboration on the budget. 'This is DDD all over again,' Slater said via email, referring to a fight earlier this year over funding for the Department of Developmental Disabilities. 'It's another circus led by the Speaker, David Livingston, and Matt Gress where they have refused to participate with any caucuses, including their Republican counterparts in the Senate, in a meaningful manner and are once again just trying to score some political points even though they know their plan is going absolutely nowhere.' Livingston and Gress, a former budget director for Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, were both key players in the fight over an extra $122 million in emergency funding for DDD that put vital services for the developmentally disabled in jeopardy. 'Rather than being productive, the House Republican leadership continues to show they are in over their head and unserious about governing,' Slater said. The House Appropriations Committee is set to discuss the proposal Thursday morning. The Senate Republicans have not introduced their budget proposal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers scale back proposal for unemployment strike payments amid blowback
Hundreds of educators, parents and students joined a rally Nov. 1. 2023 at Roosevelt High School in north Portland to support striking teachers. Teachers like them could soon receive up to 10 weeks of unemployment benefits under a compromise negotiated by Oregon lawmakers.(Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A particularly controversial measure that would give unemployment benefits to public and private Oregon workers during labor strikes survived a key Wednesday hearing after lawmakers agreed to cut the length of time in which workers on strike could cash checks by more than half. Senate Bill 916 would have limited striking workers to receiving benefits for 26 weeks, in line with the current caps on unemployment checks for Oregonians. But after the Senate rejected an amended version of the bill on Tuesday, a bicameral conference committee voted Wednesday to set a new cutoff at 10 weeks after a two-week waiting period. Committee members voted along party lines, with the sole Republican present voting against the amendments. 'I do feel like this is a massive compromise,' said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, the bill's lead author. 'It's not something I'm entirely thrilled with.' The measure would be a first-in-the-nation move by Oregon, establishing a right to strike for public and private employees while ensuring them the ability to apply for unemployment benefits. Aside from traditionally strike-exempt public employees such as firefighters and police, workers such as nurses and teachers could claim benefits after two weeks of striking. The bill has been among this session's most controversial measures, laying bare deep divisions over how best to use the state's $6.4 billion unemployment insurance fund. The changes come after support for a Democrat-led bill collapsed in a concurring Senate vote on Tuesday amid concerns from Republicans and a key dissenting Democrat. It had already drawn opposition from school board leaders who help negotiate teacher strikes, business groups, and local government leaders who contribute to the state's unemployment fund. 'We have a healthy fund today due in no small part because all the agreements in the years have been honored,' committee member Sen. Daniel Bonham, R- The Dalles, told his colleagues before voting against the amended bill. 'It is a healthy enough fund that I don't know that this will be a massive draw on it, but again the kids will lose if teachers are incentivized to strike.' House Democrats got the bill over the finish line in their chamber last week, arguing that the benefits would be used sparingly and not as a tool to prolong strikes, but to shorten them. A change made in a House committee would cap benefits to eight weeks if the state's unemployment fund is at risk, and lawmakers also included an amendment that mandates deductions in backpay for benefits claimed by teachers during strikes. Grayber on Tuesday repeated a promise she has made to continue monitoring the bill's implementation if it were to pass, but also signaled that she hoped to move past concerns that the bill would promote misuse of the unemployment system or dramatically hamper school life and public facilities. She said she's been 'guided by the math' behind the bill from the beginning, a subtle nod to the estimates from the state's employment department that the bill would not change existing tax structures for businesses and government agencies paying into the state's unemployment funding. 'I have heard the opposition,' she said. 'I very much look forward to moving past what feels like a worst-case scenario focus that we've maintained for several weeks now.' Oregonians who have lost a job can currently apply for unemployment weekly checks ranging from $196 to $836. The bill would allow benefits to kick in immediately if workers are locked out of facilities by their employer during negotiations. Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, is a sponsor of the legislation, but withdrew his support when it came up short in a 15-14 Senate vote on Tuesday. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to comment on whether he supported the proposed changes. He referred to another attempt at a transportation and infrastructure funding bill that the Legislature has taken up in the final weeks of the session: 'If there's time to pass a transportation package, there's time to get this right,' he said. The new amendment pushes the bill closer to a similar law passed in Washington that caps benefits at six weeks, but which doesn't go so far as to protect public employees like Oregon's proposed legislation. New Jersey and New York have also passed laws in recent years to provide unemployment benefits to striking private sector workers, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar effort in 2023 over fiscal concerns. Another bill extending benefits to striking workers in Connecticut is currently sitting on Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, but he is expected to veto it. The bill passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote. Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, was excused. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
LSU's Kim Mulkey Sends Message to Flau'jae Johnson After Career Announcement
LSU's Kim Mulkey Sends Message to Flau'jae Johnson After Career Announcement originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Flau'Jae Johnson is not only a star basketball player for the LSU Tigers. She is also a multi-talented woman. Advertisement Over the last three years, she has helped lead the Tigers to the Elite Eight round of the women's NCAA Tournament. As a freshman during the 2022-23 season, she teamed with Angel Reese, who is now with the WNBA's Chicago Sky, to guide LSU to the national championship with a win over Caitlin Clark's Iowa Hawkeyes. Johnson is also a rapper who has appeared on "America's Got Talent" and "The Rap Game." She has released three albums, and on Friday, her new single, named "Remember When," dropped. Tigers head coach Kim Mulkey took to X to congratulate Johnson. "Proud of you @Flaujae 💜🤍💛," Johnson wrote. Johnson, who is originally from Georgia and also played baseball as a kid, averaged 11.0 points and 5.9 rebounds a game as a freshman at LSU. Last season, she put up 18.6 points, 5.6 rebounds, 2.5 assists and 1.7 steals a game while shooting 46.8% from the field and 38.3% from 3-point range. Advertisement The 5-foot-10 guard was named to the All-SEC first team this past season. She had the opportunity to declare herself eligible for this year's WNBA draft, but she decided to instead remain at LSU for her senior season. LSU Tigers guard Flau'Jae Johnson (4) drives to the basket at Florida Gators guard Jeriah Warren (20) Matt Pendleton: Imagn Images She has already signed with Unrivaled, a women's pro three-on-three basketball league. She has a name, image and likeness (NIL) deal with the league, and she, along with Paige Bueckers of the Dallas Wings, has ownership equity as part of that NIL deal. Related: Paige Bueckers' Former Teammate Sends Message After Career Move This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
