Mandel: House settlement clearinghouse won't create CFB's goal for more level playing field
With the House vs. NCAA settlement approved, college athletics is about to begin the latest chapter in its long history of attempting to interfere with the market for athletes' services.
Let's see if this version holds up better in court than all the ones before it.
As you know by now, the House settlement has given birth to a new system by which schools for the first time can directly pay their athletes up to $20.5 million this coming school year. The schools will insist these are purely NIL deals and do not constitute 'pay-for-play,' but of course, they are entirely contingent on the athlete playing for that university. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with paying someone for their services.
Advertisement
But where the settlement veers into outright market manipulation is the establishment of a new NIL Go clearinghouse, operated by Deloitte, by which athletes must submit all deals they receive from outside sources that exceed $600. Which, in the major sports, is pretty much all of them. If Deloitte deems, say, a running back's $1 million deal from a school's collective to be above 'fair market value,' he cannot accept it.
In every other industry in this country, 'fair market value' is whatever someone is willing to pay you. Just ask the many mediocre football coaches who make $6-8 million a year. Or the athletic directors who make $1.2 million a year to hire those mediocre coaches. No clearinghouse for those folks.
Every legal expert I've spoken with about this subject thinks there's little chance this clearinghouse would survive a legal challenge. It sure sounds like yet another instance of competitors (in this case, the Power conferences) conspiring to limit athletes' compensation. Go back and read the Supreme Court decision in Alston v. NCAA to see how the highest court in the land feels about restrictions on athletes' compensation.
It's somewhat poetic the House settlement got approved during Game 3 of the WCWS, where $1M pitcher NiJaree Canady nearly led Texas Tech to an improbable national title.
Because the purpose of the new Deloitte NIL clearinghouse is to stamp out collectives like Texas Tech's.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) June 7, 2025
Nevertheless, the Power conferences — it's them, not the NCAA driving this — are pressing ahead. On Monday, they proudly unveiled their newly created enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, led by former Major League Baseball executive Bryan Seeley, who is likely being paid seven figures to make sure college athletes stop getting paid seven figures. Presumably, they've consulted with their lawyers, who have told them the thing is ironclad. The next Judge Wilken will be totally fine with it.
By now, you may be asking yourself, 'Why are they doing this? Who exactly is being harmed by a transfer quarterback getting $3 million from a school's collective?' Athletes going into the portal at any moment is an understandable source of frustration, but the House settlement does nothing to address that issue. It just wants to curb how much one gets for going into the portal.
Advertisement
The stated reason, as Nick Saban, for one, has said 1,000 times, is the need for a 'level playing field.' It's not 'fair' that Texas Tech has an oil billionaire willing to spend $10 million-plus on the transfer portal if Alabama doesn't have one. How many times have we heard: This is not what NIL is intended for.
It doesn't particularly matter at this point what NIL was intended for. This is what it's become. Collectives became a thing specifically because schools didn't want anything to do with paying athletes. Now that they're forced to, they want to unwind time and reverse things.
But what's really rich is the whole 'level playing field' thing.
There has never, ever been a level playing field in college recruiting. The schools with the most money have always held an advantage over everyone else. They have the most history, the biggest stadiums, the best-paid coaches and the most lavish facilities. Ohio State was dominating Purdue in recruiting long before there were ever NIL collectives, and the Buckeyes will keep dominating in the revenue-sharing era. You could set the cap at $60.5 million, not $20.5 million, and there's still no scenario where the Boilermakers would be able to outspend the Buckeyes.
Meanwhile, people have been so busy the past few years shouting that the sky is falling that they've failed to notice that NIL may be the first development in history that's actually given a larger pool of teams a chance at landing top talent.
The top quarterback in the portal this offseason, Tulane's Darian Mensah, did not go to Georgia or Ohio State. He chose Duke, where he's getting a reported $4 million NIL deal. The nation's No. 1 men's basketball recruit, A.J. Dybantsa, is not going to North Carolina or Kansas; he's going to BYU, for a reported $5 million deal. And last year, softball phenom NiJaree Canady turned down that sport's biggest juggernaut, Oklahoma, in favor of Texas Tech, which gave her that sport's first-ever seven-figure deal. Earlier this month, she and her team ended the Sooners' reign — and she signed another deal.
Advertisement
All of those deals got done before the House settlement was approved. Had they not, theoretically, Deloitte could flag them for being too far above 'market value.'
Clearly, booster-driven collectives aren't going away. If Oracle founder Larry Ellison wants to give the next Michigan quarterback recruit $4 million, it seems highly unlikely someone could tell him no. Either the collectives will get more creative in how they structure their deals, or someone is going to sue and succeed in getting an injunction.
Neither the schools nor the athletes would be the ones filing that suit because they're bound by the settlement. But boosters aren't bound by it. Companies aren't bound by it. And, most concerning to the conferences, state attorneys general aren't bound by it. They're the folks who succeeded in getting both the NCAA's booster restrictions and transfer restrictions shot down.
We know this much: Most schools that plan to offer the maximum $20.5 million in House payments are following a formula by which they'll allocate around $13 million for football and $3 million for men's basketball. Ohio State last year spent $20 million on football alone, and many schools are spending way more than that this year. Kentucky is one of several programs planning to spend more than $10 million on men's basketball.
Coaches' and administrators' salaries have only gone up and up and up over time, but the powers that be seem to think they can make athletes' unofficial salaries go down with their magic clearinghouse.
That's not generally how markets work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Texas Governor Will Deploy National Guard to Immigration Protests
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said late Tuesday that he would deploy National Guard troops across the state, making him the first governor to do so as protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown spread across the United States. Mr. Abbott, a Republican and a vocal supporter of President Trump's immigration agenda, said on social media that he would not tolerate violence as protests are planned in San Antonio on Wednesday. The protests that began in Los Angeles last Friday against federal immigration raids have spread to more than a dozen U.S. cities, including Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. While many of the protests have been peaceful, police have clashed with demonstrators at some of them. Mr. Trump has threatened to override governors who don't want to send National Guard troops to stop protests, like the president did in California, where he sent nearly 5,000 National Guard troops and Marines over the strong objections of state leaders. That has made California ground zero for Mr. Trump's immigration agenda, which includes ramping up deportations of undocumented immigrants with the help of local law enforcement agencies and, in a rare action, active-duty military forces. Mr. Abbott's announcement said that the Texas National Guard will 'use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' he added. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' The announcement did not specify where and when the troops will be deployed. Mr. Abbott's office, the San Antonio Police Department, the Texas National Guard and U.S. Northern Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment. On Monday night, more than a dozen protesters were arrested in Austin during a demonstration at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Mr. Abbott had said. Law enforcement officials used tear gas and pepper ball projectiles, the Texas Department of Public Safety said.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
