Latest news with #ClaudiaWilken
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Penn State, UCLA Take Private Equity Funding Deal With Elevate
Penn State and UCLA have become the inaugural partners in Elevate's newly unveiled $500 million College Investment Initiative, according to three individuals familiar with the situation. Accordingly, the two Big Ten institutions have emerged as the first known universities to formally embrace private capital as a means of funding their athletic departments—signaling a significant milestone in the growing convergence of institutional capital and intercollegiate athletics. More from Elevate Opens $500M College Sports Fund With Texas PSF, Velocity College Sports Commission Gives off Nonprofit Web Impression Colleges Prep for Athlete Title IX Lawsuits of the Revenue-Share Era Elevate formally introduced its college sports fund on Monday, revealing that two universities had already committed, but withholding their names. The fund is backed by private equity firm Velocity Capital Management and the Texas Permanent School Fund, a special-purpose government corporation that supports the state's schools. In a telephone interview, Elevate chief business officer Jonathan Marks declined to confirm the schools, but said they would be announced in the coming weeks along with potentially others. Representatives from UCLA and Penn State did not immediately respond to requests for comment. While neither Big Ten institution had previously been considered a frontrunner in the movement toward private financing, their participation is hardly surprising. Both rank among the top 25 in athletic spending among FBS public universities, per Sportico's college sports finance database, yet neither enjoys the same financial stability as some of their high-spending peers. For UCLA, the embrace of private investment comes amid prolonged fiscal distress. Now competing in the Big Ten following the dissolution of the Pac-12, the Bruins' athletic department has grappled with persistent deficits. Recent NCAA filings show a nearly $52 million shortfall in fiscal year 2024—even after receiving a $30 million campus subsidy. Over the past six years, the program has accrued close to $220 million in debt tied to athletics, highlighting the urgent need for alternative revenue streams. At Penn State, a similar financial recalibration is underway. In February, the university introduced a slate of new fees—including additional charges on season and single-game tickets, parking and in-stadium purchases—to establish its 'Legacy Fund,' designed to support mounting athletic department expenses from scholarships to facility improvements. Following Judge Claudia Wilken's final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement last week, Penn State athletic director Pat Kraft wrote an open letter announcing the Nittany Lions' intention to spend the maximum of athlete revenue-sharing allowable (roughly $20.5 million in 2025-26). 'While change can be difficult, it also can provide new opportunities, and I assure you we will embrace every opportunity this new model creates,' Kraft wrote. Over the past three years, universities, athletic conferences and private investors have engaged in ongoing discussions as the college sports economy shifts toward a model that increasingly acknowledges and compensates its athlete workforce. In this evolving landscape, it is fair to assume that nearly every Power Four institution—along with a growing number of non-P4 schools—has at least explored the potential implications of incorporating private capital into their athletic operations. Florida State University emerged as a notable early mover, becoming the first known institution to actively pursue private investment in its athletic department. In 2022, FSU initiated discussions with private equity firms Sixth Street and Arctos Partners under an in initiative internally dubbed 'Project Osceola.' While the talks demonstrated significant initial interest and ambition, the effort has yet to yield a formal agreement. Nevertheless, the initiative served as a clear signal to the broader market: Intercollegiate athletics may be prepared to venture into heretofore uncharted territory to maintain competitiveness in an increasingly professionalized landscape. With the pace of that transformation accelerating, many anticipated a wave of deals—whether through private equity, private credit or alternative financing structures—would soon materialize. Yet to date, such transactions have remained largely theoretical. In May 2024, RedBird Capital and Weatherford Capital—co-founded by FSU trustee and former Seminoles quarterback Drew Weatherford—unveiled Collegiate Athletic Solutions (CAS), an investment platform designed to deploy between $50 million and $200 million into select major athletic departments. Despite the ambition and capital behind the fund, CAS has yet to finalize or publicly announce any completed partnerships. Some universities that initially appeared to be strong candidates for private equity investment—such as the University of North Carolina—were ultimately put off by Wall Street's expectation for immediate returns. 'We have been approached numerous times about different private equity options, but nothing was appealing enough for us to pursue any further,' UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham told Sportico last August. 'The cost of capital for us is fairly low. They've got some good ideas and thoughts about some other uses of the capital, but we're not there yet.' The Big 12—arguably the most enthusiastic supporter of private capital among the conferences—recently came to a similar conclusion after a year-long evaluation process that reportedly included discussions with global investment firm CVC Capital. Meanwhile, the Big Ten, which was previously lukewarm on the idea, retained investment bank Evercore earlier this year to begin soliciting preliminary PE pitches. Best of Tennis Prize Money Tracker: Which Player Has Earned the Most in 2025? World's 50 Most Valuable Soccer Clubs 2025 Rankings NBA Playoff Games Really Are Different, Data Shows
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio State AD Ross Bjork reacts to NCAA House Settlement, outlines basic framework
In case you missed it, a judge approved the NCAA House Settlement late last week, not only setting aside distribution payouts for former athletes, but also paving the way for direct payment to student-athletes. Name, Image and Likeness will still be in play, but now anything over $600 will need to be approved by an NCAA Clearinghouse, meaning some of the larger deals will be harder to broker and more in the open, or else, face penalties of some sort. This impacts all schools, big and large, but significantly restructures and reorganizes efforts in recruiting, NIL, and roster management at the biggest of schools and football factories like Ohio State. So then, wouldn't it be interesting to see what those in the suits on the banks of the Olentangy have to say about the development that was a long time coming? Sure it would. And, on that note, Ohio State Athletic Director Ross Bjork did provide a statement to the media in preparation for a further press conference later this week that puts a straw man template in place for the position he'll take to lead the OSU program through the changes coming. 'The signing of the House settlement Friday by Judge Claudia Wilken will reshape collegiate athletics. Ohio State and schools around the country will now be permitted to directly compensate student-athletes through revenue sharing, which is actually institutional NIL rights," Bjork said in a statement. "The Department of Athletics will fully fund the revenue sharing program, which will total $20.5 million and includes funding for additional scholarships for both women's and men's sports. We remain committed to maintaining the student-athlete model, offering 36 intercollegiate sports and providing scholarships to all 36.' There will be more to come at the presser later this week, but we can take a couple of things from his statement. First, the revenue sharing program will be fully funded by the Department of Athletics. Maybe this was a foregone conclusion, but it does raise questions on several logistics like the proverbial how, when, and where this will all happen. Secondly, the amount of funding looks like it has been outlined. Maybe things will change a little north or south of this number (again, we'll find out more Thursday), but the total looks to be $20.5 million. Also, and very important, many had to wonder if this new model would mean the loss of scholarships and other athletic programs of some of the non-revenue sports. It looks like there will be an effort to keep all 36 sports with both men and women, all funded through the model. Maybe that's too optimistic, maybe not -- we'll have to again take a wait and see approach and wait to hear, see, and feel more. This is a nugget of interesting news, and this is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of what we'll find out in the coming days, weeks, and months. Contact/Follow us @BuckeyesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Ohio State news, notes and opinion. Follow Phil Harrison on X. This article originally appeared on Buckeyes Wire: Ohio State AD Ross Bjork reacts to House Settlement approval
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
How the House Settlement will reshape Texas A&M athletics
How the House Settlement will reshape Texas A&M athletics It's time for the universities and colleges to back up the Brinks trucks as they get ready to deal with all the financial obligations as a result of the House settlement approval on Friday evening. After years of lawsuits and the rise of NIL in college athletics, regulation is finally being introduced. However, the legal battles are far from over, and precedent-setting cases will likely continue for years. For now, we can examine how this approval, alongside the Texas bill, will shape Texas A&M athletics, particularly with universities now permitted to directly pay athletes. Financial Impact The most significant factor is money. The landmark case, approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, allocates $2.5–$3 billion to former players from 2016–2024 who were unable to benefit from NIL. Additionally, a revenue-sharing model essentially establishes a salary cap, beginning at approximately $20 million for the upcoming season and increasing annually over the next decade. Scholarship & Roster Changes Another major shift is the removal of scholarship limits, replaced by roster restrictions. Texas A&M head football coach Mike Elko has repeatedly highlighted the challenges this presents when shaping a team while awaiting regulatory clarity. These uncertainties complicate roster management as teams prepare for rapid policy implementation. Title IX Implications An unresolved concern is how funding will be allocated across various sports, particularly women's athletics. Even though money is earmarked for women's sports, the exact distribution under the settlement remains unclear. Following their strong season, fans are calling for increased funding for Texas A&M's softball team, led by Coach Trisha Ford. With the sport's popularity on the rise, financial investments may shift in the coming years. Texas A&M's Position Athletic Director Trev Alberts has faced criticism for his early fiscal conservatism, yet he has positioned Texas A&M ahead of the curve. At the annual SEC meetings, Alberts reinforced the university's commitment to expanding scholarships. Current & Future Scholarship Allocations: Overall: 255 → 400+ 255 → 400+ Football: 85 → 105 85 → 105 Men's Basketball: 13 → 15 13 → 15 Women's Basketball: 15 → 15 15 → 15 Baseball: 11.7 → 34 11.7 → 34 Softball: 12 → 25 12 → 25 Men's Track & Field: 12.6 → 45 12.6 → 45 Women's Track & Field: 18 → 45 While changes will impact each university differently, Texas A&M is well-positioned to provide a strong student-athlete experience without cutting sports. However, the future remains uncertain as college athletics enters a new era of free agency, where players may seek better opportunities elsewhere if an opportunity to secure their future financially presents itself. 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 Jarrett Johnson on X: @whosnextsports1.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___ AP college sports:
