Latest news with #CollegeSportsCommission
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
College sports lurches forward, hoping to find a level playing field with fewer lawsuits
MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. (AP) — On the one hand, what this new version of cash-infused college sports needs are rules that everybody follows. On the other, they need to be able to enforce those rules without getting sued into oblivion. Enter the College Sports Commission, a newly created operation that will be in charge of counting the money, deciding what a 'fair market' deal for players looks like and, if things go well, helping everyone in the system avoid trips to court whenever a decision comes down that someone doesn't like. With name, image, likeness payments taking over in college, this group will essentially become what the NCAA committee on infractions used to be – the college sports police, only with the promise of being faster, maybe fairer and maybe more transparent. In a signal of what the CSC's most serious mission might be, the schools from the four biggest conferences are being asked to sign a document pledging not to rely on state laws – some of which are more permissive of payments to players -- to work around the rules the commission is making. 'We need to get out of this situation where something happens, and we run to our attorney general and file suit,' said Trev Alberts of Texas A&M, one of 10 athletic directors who are part of another group, the Settlement Implementation Committee, that is helping oversee the transition. 'That chaos isn't sustainable. You're looking for a durable system that actually has some stability and ultimate fairness.' Number crunching to figure out what's fair The first, and presumably more straightforward, is data being compiled by LBi Software, which will track how much schools are spending on every athlete, up to the $20.5 million cap each is allowed to distribute in the first year of the new arrangement expected to begin July 1. This sounds easy but comes with the assumption that universities – which, for decades, have sought to eke out every edge they can, rulebook or no – will provide accurate data. 'Over history, boosters have looked for ways to give their schools an advantage,' said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane. 'I think that will continue even with the settlement. It's anyone's guess as to how that manifests, and what the new competitive landscape looks like.' Adding some level of transparency to the process, along with the CSC's ability to deliver sanctions if it identifies cheaters, will be key to the new venture's success. 'There's legal risk that prohibits you from doing that,' Alberts said. 'But we want to start as transparent as we can be, because we think it engenders trust.' Good intentions aside, Alberts concedes, 'I don't think it's illogical to think that, at first, it's probably going to be a little wonky.' How much should an endorsement deal be worth? Some of the wonkiest bookkeeping figures to come from the second category of number crunching, and that involves third-party NIL deals. The CSC hired Deloitte to run a so-called clearinghouse called 'NIL Go," which will be in charge of evaluating third-party deals worth $600 or more. Because these deals aren't allowed to pay players simply for playing – that's still technically forbidden in college sports -- but instead for some service they provide (an endorsement, a social media shoutout and so forth), every deal needs to be evaluated to show it is worth a fair price for what the player is doing. In a sobering revelation, Deloitte shared with sports leaders earlier this month that around 70% of third-party deals given to players since NIL became allowable in 2021 would have been denied by the new clearinghouse. All these valuations, of course, are subject to interpretation. It's much easier to set the price of a stock, or a bicycle, than the value of an athlete's endorsement deal. This is where things figure to get dicey. Though the committee has an appeals process, then an arbitration process, ultimately, some of these cases are destined to be challenged in court. 'You're just waiting to see, what is a 'valid business purpose' (for an NIL deal), and what are the guidelines around that?" said Rob Lang, a business litigation partner at Thompson Coburn who deals with sports cases. 'You can see all the lawyer fights coming out of that.' Avoiding court, coordinating state laws are new priorities In fact, elements of all this are ripe to be challenged in court, which might explain why the power conferences drafted the document pledging fealty to the new rules in the first place. For instance, Feldman called a law recently enacted in Tennessee viewed by many as the most athlete-friendly statute in the country 'the next step in the evolution" of state efforts to bar the NCAA from limiting NIL compensation for athletes with an eye on winning battles for recruits and retaining roster talent. 'What we've seen over the last few years is states trying to one-up each other to make their institutions more attractive places for people to go," he said. 'This is the next iteration of that. It may set up a showdown between the schools, the NCAA and the states.' Greg Sankey, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, said a league spanning 12 states cannot operate well if all those states have different rules about how and when it is legal to pay players. The SEC has been drafting legislation for states to pass to unify the rules across the conference. Ultimately, Sankey and a lot of other people would love to see a national law passed by Congress that does that for all states and all conferences. That will take months, if not years, which is why the new committee drafted the document for the schools to sign. 'We are all defendant schools and conferences and you inherently agree to this,' Alberts said of the document. 'I sat in the room with all of our football coaches, 'Do you want to be governed?' The answer is 'yes.''
Associated Press
5 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
College sports lurches forward, hoping to find a level playing field with fewer lawsuits
MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. (AP) — On the one hand, what this new version of cash-infused college sports needs are rules that everybody follows. On the other, they need to be able to enforce those rules without getting sued into oblivion. Enter the College Sports Commission, a newly created operation that will be in charge of counting the money, deciding what a 'fair market' deal for players looks like and, if things go well, helping everyone in the system avoid trips to court whenever a decision comes down that someone doesn't like. With name, image, likeness payments taking over in college, this group will essentially become what the NCAA committee on infractions used to be – the college sports police, only with the promise of being faster, maybe fairer and maybe more transparent. In a signal of what the CSC's most serious mission might be, the schools from the four biggest conferences are being asked to sign a document pledging not to rely on state laws – some of which are more permissive of payments to players -- to work around the rules the commission is making. 'We need to get out of this situation where something happens, and we run to our attorney general and file suit,' said Trev Alberts of Texas A&M, one of 10 athletic directors who are part of another group, the Settlement Implementation Committee, that is helping oversee the transition. 'That chaos isn't sustainable. You're looking for a durable system that actually has some stability and ultimate fairness.' Number crunching to figure out what's fair In this new landsacpe, two different companies will be in charge of two kinds of number crunching. The first, and presumably more straightforward, is data being compiled by LBi Software, which will track how much schools are spending on every athlete, up to the $20.5 million cap each is allowed to distribute in the first year of the new arrangement expected to begin July 1. This sounds easy but comes with the assumption that universities – which, for decades, have sought to eke out every edge they can, rulebook or no – will provide accurate data. 'Over history, boosters have looked for ways to give their schools an advantage,' said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane. 'I think that will continue even with the settlement. It's anyone's guess as to how that manifests, and what the new competitive landscape looks like.' Adding some level of transparency to the process, along with the CSC's ability to deliver sanctions if it identifies cheaters, will be key to the new venture's success. 'There's legal risk that prohibits you from doing that,' Alberts said. 'But we want to start as transparent as we can be, because we think it engenders trust.' Good intentions aside, Alberts concedes, 'I don't think it's illogical to think that, at first, it's probably going to be a little wonky.' How much should an endorsement deal be worth? Some of the wonkiest bookkeeping figures to come from the second category of number crunching, and that involves third-party NIL deals. The CSC hired Deloitte to run a so-called clearinghouse called 'NIL Go,' which will be in charge of evaluating third-party deals worth $600 or more. Because these deals aren't allowed to pay players simply for playing – that's still technically forbidden in college sports -- but instead for some service they provide (an endorsement, a social media shoutout and so forth), every deal needs to be evaluated to show it is worth a fair price for what the player is doing. In a sobering revelation, Deloitte shared with sports leaders earlier this month that around 70% of third-party deals given to players since NIL became allowable in 2021 would have been denied by the new clearinghouse. All these valuations, of course, are subject to interpretation. It's much easier to set the price of a stock, or a bicycle, than the value of an athlete's endorsement deal. This is where things figure to get dicey. Though the committee has an appeals process, then an arbitration process, ultimately, some of these cases are destined to be challenged in court. 'You're just waiting to see, what is a 'valid business purpose' (for an NIL deal), and what are the guidelines around that?' said Rob Lang, a business litigation partner at Thompson Coburn who deals with sports cases. 'You can see all the lawyer fights coming out of that.' Avoiding court, coordinating state laws are new priorities In fact, elements of all this are ripe to be challenged in court, which might explain why the power conferences drafted the document pledging fealty to the new rules in the first place. For instance, Feldman called a law recently enacted in Tennessee viewed by many as the most athlete-friendly statute in the country 'the next step in the evolution' of state efforts to bar the NCAA from limiting NIL compensation for athletes with an eye on winning battles for recruits and retaining roster talent. 'What we've seen over the last few years is states trying to one-up each other to make their institutions more attractive places for people to go,' he said. 'This is the next iteration of that. It may set up a showdown between the schools, the NCAA and the states.' Greg Sankey, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, said a league spanning 12 states cannot operate well if all those states have different rules about how and when it is legal to pay players. The SEC has been drafting legislation for states to pass to unify the rules across the conference. Ultimately, Sankey and a lot of other people would love to see a national law passed by Congress that does that for all states and all conferences. That will take months, if not years, which is why the new committee drafted the document for the schools to sign. 'We are all defendant schools and conferences and you inherently agree to this,' Alberts said of the document. 'I sat in the room with all of our football coaches, 'Do you want to be governed?' The answer is 'yes.'' ___ AP college sports:
NBC Sports
23-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC Sports
College Sports Commission reportedly on hold
Mike Florio and Michael Holley unpack a report the White House is 'pressing pause' on the College Sports Commission, as well as acknowledge the College Football Playoff will adopt straight seeding.
Associated Press
20-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Power leagues look to bind schools to rules of $2.8 billion NCAA settlement, AP source says
The four biggest conferences in college sports are working to tie their schools to the pending $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement and could have drastic penalties for anyone refusing to comply. Officials from the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten, the Big 12 and the Southeastern Conference have drafted a document intended to prevent their members from using state laws to breach or subvert enforcement that would come with the settlement, according to a person familiar with the pending contract. The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations. Yahoo Sports first reported details of the document, which is viewed as a way of providing stability around the enforcement of new rules. The settlement itself is before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who has given preliminary approval but asked both sides to come up with a way to address details around roster limits that many schools are already putting in motion. Her final decision could come at any time. The document would bind institutions to enforcement policies even if their state laws are contradictory, the person said. It would require schools to waive their right to pursue legal challenges against the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission. The document would exempt the commission from lawsuits from member schools over enforcement decisions, instead offering arbitration as the main settlement option. The document is still being refined, but a working copy has been distributed to school presidents, general counsels and athletic directors, the person said. Legal concerns remain, though, especially for public institutions that would essentially be agreeing not to follow state laws. Consequences for not signing the agreement would include risking the loss of league membership and participation against other teams from the Power Four conferences. A finalized version of the document could be signed once the House settlement is granted approval by a federal judge. The settlement — a $2.8 billion agreement by the NCAA and power conferences to settle antitrust lawsuits over athlete compensation — would rewrite the college sports rulebook and usher in a professionalized model that allows schools to share millions in revenue with athletes in a capped system that features a new enforcement arm to police booster deals. The settlement's revenue-sharing concept could begin as early as July 1. ___ AP Sports Writers Mark Long, Larry Lage, John Raby and Jim Vertuno contributed. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Power conferences working on contract to bind schools to new enforcement rules, with strict punishments
On May 1, in perhaps an intentionally quiet signing, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee scrawled his name across the bottom of a six-page state bill. Tennessee Senate Bill No. 536, its details unearthed last week, paves the way for state schools — University of Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Memphis, etc. — and their affiliated collectives to break House settlement-related rules and prevents college sports' new enforcement entity from penalizing those schools. In layman's terms, the law is a launched missile toward plans from the NCAA and power conferences to police the revenue-sharing era of college sports, taking aim at the athlete compensation cap, the severe penalties for rule-breakers and the policies that prevent phony booster-backed name, image and likeness deals to players. But power conference executives have plans to combat such laws. Officials from the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and ACC are circulating a draft of a groundbreaking and first-of-its-kind document intended to prevent universities from using their state laws to violate new enforcement rules and, in a wholly stunning concept, requires schools to waive their right to pursue legal challenges against the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission. The document, now viewed by dozens of leading school administrators, would bind institutions to the enforcement policies, even if their state law is contradictory, and would exempt the CSC from lawsuits from member schools over enforcement decisions, offering instead a route for schools to pursue arbitration. The document, described as an 'Affiliation' or 'Membership Agreement,' is not finalized but a draft of the contract has been distributed to several school presidents, general counsels and athletic directors — many of whom have expressed legal concerns with several of the document's concepts, which are now being refined. The document is meant to be signed by all power conference schools, perhaps as well as others opting into the settlement, as a way to bind the group and provide stability around the enforcement of rules. That includes, most notably, decisions from the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse, dubbed 'NIL Go,' an entity expected to more strictly enforce booster pay. The consequence for not signing the agreement is steep: a school risks the loss of conference membership and participation against other power league programs. 'You have to sign it,' says one athletic director who has seen the document, 'or we don't play you.' 'As a condition of membership, you must comply with the settlement and enforcement,' says a power conference president with knowledge of the document. The membership agreement has evolved since Yahoo Sports first learned of its existence in February. Over the last few weeks, administrators received the latest version. But the document's future remains murky. Firstly, a finalized version cannot be signed until the House settlement is granted approval from California Judge Claudia Wilken. At that point, will all schools sign a document that, many legal experts contend, creates legal issues for public universities? Are these concepts even enforceable? 'Arbitration itself isn't surprising but saying that you agree not to follow your state law … that may or may not be enforceable,' said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane and an expert on college sports legal matters. 'No matter what the sides do, they're going to be sued. This is an effort to rein in the lawsuits. It's just not clear how enforceable all these provisions will be.' Signing an agreement that exempts a state university from following its own state law is particularly troubling, says Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association. That's especially true when the consequence is potential eviction from your own conference. Such a concept is actually addressed in Tennessee's state law. The law prevents an athletic association from adopting and enforcing rules that violate state law and prohibits any association from 'interfering' with a school's membership status, voting rights and revenue distribution. Huma has helped dozens of states adopt laws that provide their universities with advantages in the NIL era. He calls the affiliation agreement a 'literal smoking gun in liability' for public universities. Mit Winter, a sports law attorney at Kennyhertz Perry LLC who works with both schools and collectives, unearthed details of the Tennessee law last week. The law gives schools and third parties in the state 'cover' not to follow rules that may be subject to antitrust scrutiny, he says. Many of the House settlement-related concepts — most notably the clearinghouse — could be in jeopardy of such scrutiny. 'Even if Judge Wilken approves the House settlement, her order will not address whether new NCAA rules that come out of the House settlement comply with antitrust law,' Winter says. 'She's only ruling on whether the settlement agreement is fair to absent class members.' The settlement — an agreement by the NCAA and power conferences to settle consolidated lawsuits over athlete compensation — will usher in a new more professionalized model where schools can share millions of revenue with athletes in a capped system that features a new enforcement arm to police booster deals. A decision to approve or deny the settlement is now in the hands of Wilken. While the timeline is at her own discretion, the settlement's revenue-sharing concept is scheduled to begin July 1 — a fast-approaching date that launches college athletics into a new world. At the center of much of the scrutiny around the settlement is 'NIL Go,' the Deloitte-run clearinghouse charged with determining if third-party NIL deals with athletes are legitimate and of fair market value. The clearinghouse is using an algorithm to establish a 'compensation range' for an assortment of deals — a concept that many legal experts expect to trigger a bevy of legal challenges. In a gathering at ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials shared notable figures with athletic directors and coaches, including that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved. In March, Deloitte shared more figures with administrators. About 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000. These figures suggest that the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives are distributing to athletes — salaries that are masquerading as endorsement or commercial contracts. The affiliation agreement aims to, above all, protect the clearinghouse's decisions, exempting it from lawsuits filed by schools and preventing those schools from circumventing the settlement's compensation cap through affiliated entities, such as collectives. 'If we go back to external NIL that is separate from the House pool revenue share and back to a pay-for-play model, then why did we settle?' asks Baylor athletic director Mack Rhoades, who is aware of the affiliation agreement. 'We are going to spend $20.5 million [the per-school cap in Year 1] and then on top of it go to pay-for-play with collectives?' 'In this new era, we are already trying to circumvent the rules,' Colorado athletic director Rick George said during a panel at the Fiesta Bowl Spring Summit earlier this month. 'We've got to stop trying to circumvent the rules.' State NIL laws permit schools to do just that, and many of them were adopted after encouragement from school administrators seeking an advantage for their university. At a recent meeting of SEC administrators, Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione addressed the subject of circumvention in an impassioned plea to colleagues. 'We understand [the settlement] may not be perfect, but we all must commit to it, and I mean truly commit to it, or it doesn't have a chance of working,' Castiglione told Yahoo Sports in a recent interview. 'There's more talk out there about people already dismissing the chance of this working than finding durable solutions. It's up to us to change the narrative.' State laws have been a prickly issue for NCAA and conference administrators. The laws vary greatly by state, providing schools, even within the same conference, different and often advantageous ways to skirt league and national standards. For instance, while 14 states currently permit direct school-to-athlete payment, another nine states have laws prohibiting such. According to research from the NIL platform Opendorse, roughly half of the states in the U.S. have adopted NIL laws with language that may delegitimize the impending House settlement regulations and enforcement rules. In fact, the five-year-long, multi-million-dollar congressional lobbying effort from NCAA and conference executives is rooted in encouraging lawmakers to pass a federal bill that, among other things, preempts these varying state laws. The attempt to exempt the College Sports Commission from legal action from schools is an example of the liability that faces any new entity, says Julie Sommer, executive director of the Drake Group, an organization whose mission is to defend academic integrity within college athletics. The CSC, soon to hire an executive director, board and enforcement staff, is expected to manage the enforcement and infractions of the new athlete revenue-share era, in a way replacing a much-maligned NCAA-controlled process of lengthy investigations, controversial enforcement decisions and what some believe to be unnecessary committee hearings. 'The NCAA is an association of its member schools,' Sommer says. 'The same challenges of potential monopoly power and antitrust issues that the NCAA currently faces could easily transfer to a new, similarly structured organization. You can leave the NCAA, but you can't escape the problems of the NCAA.'
