Objectors argue updated NCAA sport-by-sport roster-limit deal remains unfair for athletes
Objectors argue updated NCAA sport-by-sport roster-limit deal remains unfair for athletes
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Latest on NCAA settlement that would allow revenue sharing for college athletes
USA TODAY Sports' Steve Berkowitz discusses the latest on judge's refusal to approve NCAA settlement that would allow revenue sharing for college athletes
Sports Pulse
Objectors to the proposed settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences have argued in new filings that even a recently amended version of the deal remains unfair to athletes who could lose their places on teams due to sport-by-sport roster limits that are part of the agreement.
The limits had been set to go into effect on July 1 for any school that chooses to participate in another feature of the agreement: paying athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). But on April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused to grant final approval, saying in an order that the roster arrangement is 'not fair' because thousands of athletes who are supposed to be benefiting from the deal stood to lose their places on teams after the current school year.
She gave the sides two weeks to address her concerns, and wrote that one solution would be 'to ensure that no (athletes) who have or had a roster spot will lose it as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.'
On May 7, lawyers for the plaintiffs, the NCAA and the conferences wrote that they had agreed to a setup under which schools would have the option to exempt from the limits any athlete who was on a roster in 2024-25 and who has been or would have been removed for 2025-26 because of the limits for the remainder of their college careers. It also would let schools similarly accommodate any high school senior who was "recruited to be, or was assured they would be" on a Division I school's roster for the 2025-26 school year.
However, this would not remove the roster limits from the settlement. And this would not require schools to keep all of their current athletes on their rosters. Lawyers for the NCAA wrote that "there are no guarantees" that these athletes "will get or maintain roster spots. But that does not adversely affect any" athlete, the NCAA said, because athletes' roster spots always have been "at the discretion of the coach" and the school.
In filings on May 9 and May 13, three lawyers for objectors who had been allowed by Wilken to have input in how the agreement would by modified, separately argued, basically, that athletes have been on teams or promised spots should be assured that they will not lose those positions because of the limits.
'A settlement like this one, which vests (the schools) with 'discretion' to provide relief – or not – is no settlement at all,' wrote a group represented by Chicago-based attorney Steve Molo. 'Indeed, numerous Objectors are hearing that schools have no intention of relaxing roster limits at all, leaving many student-athletes in the same position as under the settlement (Wilken) rejected as unfair.'
Molo's group proposed that all athletes currently on a roster or promised a spot should not count against the limits for the duration of their careers. This group said schools would have the discretion to cut athletes 'for legitimate reasons unrelated to the roster cap, such as conduct violations and poor athletic or academic performance,' but if there is dispute about this, the athlete could ask for an arbitrator to decide the matter.
Another objector lawyer, Laura Reathaford, argued for mandatory grandfathering of current athletes and of high school seniors who had 'accepted an offer' to join a team in 2025-26 until their eligibility expires.
'By making grandfathering … optional, the (athletes) are still not treated equitably relative to each other and relief is not being provided to each (athlete covered by the settlement) as the law requires,' she wrote. 'Instead … conflicts persist by protecting some athletes while leaving the others exposed.'
A third group of lawyers led by Denver-based attorneys Douglas DePeppe and Robert Hinckley endorsed the other objectors' proposals but argued for what they termed 'a formal grievance' and 'oversight' system.
The plaintiffs, the NCAA and the conferences can respond to these in arguments they must provide to Wilken no later than May 16.
Wilken has written that she was inclined to approve the rest of the deal over a variety of other objections. That means she already was otherwise prepared to accept an arrangement under which $2.8 billion in damages would be paid to current and former athletes — and their lawyers — over 10 years, and Division I schools would be able to start paying athletes directly for use of their NIL, subject to a per-school cap that would increase over time and be based on a percentage of certain athletics revenues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
DoorDash Hit With Major Lawsuit Over 'Deceptive' Pricing
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. DoorDash, America's premier food delivery platform, has been sued by Canada's competition authority for "allegedly advertising misleading prices and discounts." Newsweek reached out to DoorDash via email outside of regular hours for comment. Why It Matters This marks the second major lawsuit to face DoorDash this year, following a $17-million settlement over the misuse of driver tips in February. As well as potentially forcing the delivery firm to significantly alter its pricing practices, the latest action could force the company to pay a significantly higher penalty, as well as restitution to affected customers. What To Know On Monday, the Canadian Competition Bureau announced it would be taking legal action against the San Francisco-based company, as well as its Canadian subsidiary DoorDash Technologies Canada. The antitrust watchdog said that the company had consistently promoted its services at lower prices than customers were eventually forced to pay, in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, while also misrepresenting certain fees as taxes rather than discretionary charges. The lawsuit stems from DoorDash allegedly advertising food and other items at prices far lower than those customers eventually paid, and engaging in what the bureau refers to as "drip pricing": a sales tactic in which customers are shown an initial lower price, with additional fees added later in the purchasing process. These included delivery costs, as well as obligatory "regulatory response" and "expanded range" fees. "A bureau investigation found that consumers were unable to purchase food and other items at the advertised price on DoorDash's websites and mobile applications due to the addition of mandatory fees at checkout," the announcement read, describing the practice as "deceptive," as "consumers are not presented with an attainable price up front." The Bureau alleged that DoorDash has been engaged in this alleged conduct for "close to a decade," and has acquired nearly $1 billion in customer fees from doing so. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Photo illustration byIn addition, the investigation found that the company had combined service fees and taxes into a single item on a user's bill, which it said was "false or misleading as it requires an extra click for the consumer to actually see that the 'fees and estimated taxes' are two separate charges, only one of which is imposed by the government on the purchaser and not the other." In its application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal, the bureau requested that DoorDash and its subsidiary stop engaging in the practices, pay a monetary penalty "as the tribunal deems appropriate," and to pay restitution to affected customers. The latter amount, it said, could reach "the total amounts paid to DoorDash for the products in respect of which the reviewable conduct was engaged in." What People Are Saying Canada's competition commissioner Matthew Boswell said: "Parliament has made it clear that businesses must not engage in drip pricing by advertising unattainable prices and then adding mandatory fees. The Competition Bureau has been fighting against this misleading practice for years. "Our litigation against DoorDash is another example of our efforts to ensure consumers are not misled and can trust the prices they see online. We urge all businesses to review their pricing practices and make sure they comply with the law." DoorDash denied hiding fees from or misleading customers, saying it believes the lawsuit "is an overly punitive attempt to make an example of an industry leader in local commerce," in a statement quoted by Reuters. What Happens Next? According to the application, DoorDash has 45 days to issue a response to the Competition Tribunal.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Hedge fund giants are backing more external fund managers. Here's why smaller rivals are doing the opposite.
The hedge fund talent war means profit-generating portfolio managers have more options than ever. In an industry run by savvy billionaires, rank-and-file traders have had the upper hand in recent years thanks to what Millennium founder Izzy Englander deemed a " talent bubble" in 2023. Multistrategy firms, which blend a variety of investment strategies within a single fund, are catering to top PMs' whims, opening offices in places like Dubai and Puerto Rico so employees can avoid the taxman, or letting top traders run capital externally in their own funds. A report from data provider With Intelligence found that multistrategy platforms have put $55 billion to work in external managers, with firms like Millennium, Qube, and Schonfeld leading the way. But as the industry's largest players partner with new launches and external money managers, smaller platforms are drawing in portfolio managers who want a semblance of autonomy in addition to the benefits of working within a broader organization. Smaller managers can offer a more boutique feel for traders who feel constrained by the biggest multistrategy funds, which one allocator previous described as " skill factories" that don't rely on a single star. Adrian Brummer, a partner at $12 billion Brummer & Partners, a Swedish alternative investment manager, told Business Insider that the firm has four internal portfolio managers and expects that to grow to "six or more during this year." Brummer has more investment strategies run via external partnerships than internal PMs, but traders working in-house can be more efficient and easier to aboard, Brummer said. "A pod structure also allows us to access more capacity-constrained strategies," Brummer wrote in an email. A focus on talent Brummer isn't the only platform known for investing in external firms and managers that is flipping its model. A person close to the $6 billion alternative manager New Holland said the firm is in the early stages of adding internal portfolio managers to its multi-strategy offering. The firm began as an investment advisor for Dutch pension plans and has since become independent. It just hired former Brevan Howard executive Stephan Brohme as chief risk officer to boost its "operational infrastructure," a press release said. "His extensive experience and expertise working alongside investment teams to effectively mitigate and strategically manage risk will be a tremendous asset across our firm," New Holland CEO Scott Radke said in the release. London-based Bainbridge Partners, which started its multistrategy offering as a fund-of-funds in 2002, has added 10 internal investing pods over the last decade and plans to add more, according to Antoine Haddad, the founder of the $1 billion firm. "The focus is to bring in more strategies that make sense to internalize," Haddad wrote in an email, with a bias toward more niche options. At former Eisler portfolio manager Sean Gambino's new fund, Baypointe Partners, onetime Crestline executive Mark Walker is recreating an "old-school partnership," he told BI. Walker was a part of the leadership team at Crestline that turned the alternative manager's fund-of-funds business into a more modern multistrategy fund with some internal PMs. He is now the CEO of Baypointe and said he is targeting pod shop investors tired of the siloed structure found at many of the biggest platforms. He aims to build a "Seal Team 6" of senior PMs trading specific sectors, with a "completely transparent center book," which sits atop traders' portfolios and pulls its positions from them. Gambino is already trading consumer stocks, and Richard Shapiro, a former Millennium and Wexford Capital PM, will run the center book. "PMs want a level of independence but don't want to run a business," he said. While the biggest funds in the booming multistrategy space, which now manage more than $900 billion, according to research from Nasdaq's eVestment, can offer PMs more guaranteed compensation, there are levers smaller firms can pull to attract talent. A differentiator Brummer and Walker both mentioned is tailoring risk management limits to a PM's strategy and preference. It's an advantage that can only be offered by smaller firms, as the biggest funds have too many moving parts and people to make customized risk frameworks for each of their traders. "It's all about what you need to do to secure the best talent," said Matthew Glasofer, a partner at Corbin Capital Partners, a $9.6 billion alternative asset manager with a multistrategy fund that only invests in external PMs. Corbin is not yet bringing traders in-house, but Glasofer said, "We haven't shut the door on anything."
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Starbucks' new OpenAI-powered tool helps baristas remember drink recipes and suggests food options
Starbucks is piloting a tool that'll help its baristas remember drink recipes. The Seattle-based coffee chain launched a new AI tool called Green Dot Assist, created with OpenAI. This tool, available on an iPad behind the counter in Starbucks stores, will work as an in-store virtual assistant for baristas. "Instead of flipping through manuals or searching for answers, partners can now ask questions on in-store iPads and receive instant, conversational responses," Starbucks said in a Tuesday press release. In an explanatory video of the tool, Starbucks said Green Dot Assist would show videos of how to make certain drinks, suggest tweaks and customizations to recipes, and recommend food pairings. For instance, a video on how to make Starbucks' Lavender Oatmilk Latte shows the app directing the barista to recommend a lemon loaf to the customer, as the loaf would "complement the latte's floral notes." "This marks a significant step forward in our commitment to streamlining operations, reducing friction, and giving partners more time to focus on crafting beverages and connecting with customers," Starbucks said in the release. Green Dot Assist is in use in 35 Starbucks stores in the US, "with more on the way," Starbucks said in the release. CNBC reported that a broader launch of the tool across the US and Canada is scheduled for Starbucks' fiscal year 2026, which begins in the fall. The new tool fits into CEO Brian Niccol's " Back to Starbucks" game plan, which aims to make Starbucks stores more inviting, improve operations, and reduce customer wait times. As part of the plan, Starbucks announced it would eliminate 30% of its menu offerings before the end of the fiscal year and has introduced a new mobile ordering system. The chain is also ramping up hiring baristas to fix its long-standing understaffing problem. Niccol said in April that Starbucks was focusing more on hiring baristas than on investing in equipment. "We're finding through our work that investments in labor, rather than equipment, are more effective at improving throughput and driving transaction growth," Niccol said on the company's earnings call in April.
