Latest news with #DarrenHeitner
Boston Globe
11-07-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Collective system on the outs as schools adapt to new athlete-payment environment in college sports
Advertisement Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia, and others have announced they're shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State, and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals. Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established with the help of auditing giant Deloitte and run by the new College Sports Commission. In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, 'ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.' More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system. Advertisement But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a 'valid business purpose' standard for deals to be approved. Related : The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit. The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of 'selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose' according to the NCAA rule. Sports attorney Darren Heitner, who deals in NIL, said the guidance 'could disproportionately burden collectives that are already committed to spending money on players for multiple years to come.' 'If a pattern of rejections results from collective deals submitted to Deloitte, it may invite legal scrutiny under antitrust principles,' he said. On a separate track, some college sports leaders, including the NCAA, are seeking a limited form of antitrust protection from Congress. The letter said a NIL deal could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples. Advertisement 'In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student's NIL to promote their businesses,' the letter said. Related :
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
How ‘oppressive' FSU revenue-sharing deals show continued exploitation of college football players
Revenue sharing is now a feature of college athletics. Thanks to the house settelement signed in May, schools are permitted to spend $20.5m annually across sports, including through expanded scholarships and direct payments (of which it appears football will generally receive approximately 75%). This would seem to mitigate the longstanding problem of exploitation in college football. However, in a sport still defined by extreme injury, recently disclosed provisions in the new Florida State University (FSU) revenue-sharing contract show that schools appear to simply be finding new ways to extract value from players, as ever at startling personal cost. Per a CBS Sports report, the new FSU contract being distributed to football players reads, in part, 'the following circumstances create a breach of contract by Student-Athlete: Student-Athlete experiences any illness or injury which is serious enough to affect the value of the rights granted to [school] under this Agreement.' In other words: If a player gets injured, the school has leverage to cancel the deal. Darren Heitner, adjunct law professor at the University of Florida and University of Miami, and an expert on college sports' name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, was stunned by what he found upon reading the contracts. 'I take no issue with the drafter of a contract creating a document that leans in favor of the drafting party. In fact, that's expected,' he told us. 'However, there is a problem with a contract when it is so unfair, one-sided, and oppressive that it shocks the conscience. 'Reviewing the terms and considering that sometimes 17-year-olds with no legal counsel will be asked to sign on the dotted line, my takeaway is that this rises to the level of unconscionability unless thoroughly negotiated. I have reviewed dozens of revenue-sharing agreements and none compare.' In a statement given to CBS Sports, FSU said in part that 'Each individual situation will be unique and the hypotheticals are impossible to predict. However, we are committed to continuing to provide an elite experience for our student-athletes in all aspects of their collegiate career.' Injury, of course, is an inherent feature of college football. In our recent book The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game we observe that every 2.6 years of participation in football doubles the chances of contracting the degenerative brain disorder chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and that 91 percent of American college football players' brains examined in a pivotal Boston University study displayed neuropathology consistent with CTE. Similarly, participation in football likely increases the chances of developing Parkinson's disease by 61 percent compared to athletes in other organized sports (and that risk is 2.93 times greater at the college/pro level). In the book, we interviewed twenty-five former big-time college football players about their experiences in the sport. Many of those players suffered extremely debilitating injuries that caused them to lose seasons or even end careers, including knee reconstructions, torn AC joints, neck surgeries, torn achilles tendons, and countless concussions. One player told us, 'Before I got to college, never had an injury. By the time I left college, I had a medical record book of over six hundred pages. From rehab notes, surgery notes, to MRIs. I had over twelve MRIs total, five knee surgeries. This was while I was playing. . . . Later I found out that I had four torn labrum[s]. So I have a torn labrum on both shoulders, torn labrum on both hips.' Thus, the question of players being relieved of their contractually agreed upon compensation as a consequence of injury is hardly academic. It will happen, and to many. 'I think the recently revealed contract details from Florida State exemplifies the current attitude of university officials who have completely lost sight of their jobs as educators,' former UCLA and NFL player Chris Kluwe told us. 'They view college athletes (and students) as a product to be bought and sold and not human beings, which runs contrary to everything the education system should be. 'In a sport like football where athletes are predominately black and in a state like Florida where the current government seems intent on returning to the Antebellum Era, the fact school officials feel the need to include severe language curtailing players' rights to the product of their labor is intensely concerning, and highlights the need for a college players union to protect athletes from would-be modern day plantation owners.' The situation is compounded by the fact that universities don't provide long-term health insurance to the players, leaving them to bear all the associated costs of their physical hardship. One player we spoke to for the book actually told us that 'Long term, just strictly financially … it will have [ended up], like I paid money to play college football.' Until such time as there are genuine occupational health and safety protections befitting a profession with such profound inherent dangers, it's clear that the sport is not actually entering a more humane era. The House Settlement has ushered in little more than a new modality for the same old exploitation and harm. Nathan Kalman-Lamb is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick and co-author of The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game. He is co-host of The End of Sport podcast. Derek Silva is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at King's University College at Western University and co-author of The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game. He is co-host of The End of Sport podcast.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How ‘oppressive' FSU revenue-sharing deals show continued exploitation of college football players
Revenue sharing is now a feature of college athletics. Thanks to the house settelement signed in May, schools are permitted to spend $20.5m annually across sports, including through expanded scholarships and direct payments (of which it appears football will generally receive approximately 75%). This would seem to mitigate the longstanding problem of exploitation in college football. However, in a sport still defined by extreme injury, recently disclosed provisions in the new Florida State University (FSU) revenue-sharing contract show that schools appear to simply be finding new ways to extract value from players, as ever at startling personal cost. Advertisement Per a CBS Sports report, the new FSU contract being distributed to football players reads, in part, 'the following circumstances create a breach of contract by Student-Athlete: Student-Athlete experiences any illness or injury which is serious enough to affect the value of the rights granted to [school] under this Agreement.' In other words: If a player gets injured, the school has leverage to cancel the deal. Related: Why female athletes are challenging the NCAA's $2.8bn settlement Darren Heitner, adjunct law professor at the University of Florida and University of Miami, and an expert on college sports' name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, was stunned by what he found upon reading the contracts. Advertisement 'I take no issue with the drafter of a contract creating a document that leans in favor of the drafting party. In fact, that's expected,' he told us. 'However, there is a problem with a contract when it is so unfair, one-sided, and oppressive that it shocks the conscience. 'Reviewing the terms and considering that sometimes 17-year-olds with no legal counsel will be asked to sign on the dotted line, my takeaway is that this rises to the level of unconscionability unless thoroughly negotiated. I have reviewed dozens of revenue-sharing agreements and none compare.' In a statement given to CBS Sports, FSU said in part that 'Each individual situation will be unique and the hypotheticals are impossible to predict. However, we are committed to continuing to provide an elite experience for our student-athletes in all aspects of their collegiate career.' Injury, of course, is an inherent feature of college football. In our recent book The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game we observe that every 2.6 years of participation in football doubles the chances of contracting the degenerative brain disorder chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and that 91 percent of American college football players' brains examined in a pivotal Boston University study displayed neuropathology consistent with CTE. Similarly, participation in football likely increases the chances of developing Parkinson's disease by 61 percent compared to athletes in other organized sports (and that risk is 2.93 times greater at the college/pro level). Advertisement In the book, we interviewed twenty-five former big-time college football players about their experiences in the sport. Many of those players suffered extremely debilitating injuries that caused them to lose seasons or even end careers, including knee reconstructions, torn AC joints, neck surgeries, torn achilles tendons, and countless concussions. Related: 'We were powerless': inside the devastating Ohio State sexual abuse scandal One player told us, 'Before I got to college, never had an injury. By the time I left college, I had a medical record book of over six hundred pages. From rehab notes, surgery notes, to MRIs. I had over twelve MRIs total, five knee surgeries. This was while I was playing. . . . Later I found out that I had four torn labrum[s]. So I have a torn labrum on both shoulders, torn labrum on both hips.' Thus, the question of players being relieved of their contractually agreed upon compensation as a consequence of injury is hardly academic. It will happen, and to many. Advertisement 'I think the recently revealed contract details from Florida State exemplifies the current attitude of university officials who have completely lost sight of their jobs as educators,' former UCLA and NFL player Chris Kluwe told us. 'They view college athletes (and students) as a product to be bought and sold and not human beings, which runs contrary to everything the education system should be. 'In a sport like football where athletes are predominately black and in a state like Florida where the current government seems intent on returning to the Antebellum Era, the fact school officials feel the need to include severe language curtailing players' rights to the product of their labor is intensely concerning, and highlights the need for a college players union to protect athletes from would-be modern day plantation owners.' The situation is compounded by the fact that universities don't provide long-term health insurance to the players, leaving them to bear all the associated costs of their physical hardship. One player we spoke to for the book actually told us that 'Long term, just strictly financially … it will have [ended up], like I paid money to play college football.' Until such time as there are genuine occupational health and safety protections befitting a profession with such profound inherent dangers, it's clear that the sport is not actually entering a more humane era. The House Settlement has ushered in little more than a new modality for the same old exploitation and harm. Advertisement
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
How ‘oppressive' FSU revenue-sharing deals show continued exploitation of college football players
Revenue sharing is now a feature of college athletics. Thanks to the house settelement signed in May, schools are permitted to spend $20.5m annually across sports, including through expanded scholarships and direct payments (of which it appears football will generally receive approximately 75%). This would seem to mitigate the longstanding problem of exploitation in college football. However, in a sport still defined by extreme injury, recently disclosed provisions in the new Florida State University (FSU) revenue-sharing contract show that schools appear to simply be finding new ways to extract value from players, as ever at startling personal cost. Per a CBS Sports report, the new FSU contract being distributed to football players reads, in part, 'the following circumstances create a breach of contract by Student-Athlete: Student-Athlete experiences any illness or injury which is serious enough to affect the value of the rights granted to [school] under this Agreement.' In other words: If a player gets injured, the school has leverage to cancel the deal. Darren Heitner, adjunct law professor at the University of Florida and University of Miami, and an expert on college sports' name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, was stunned by what he found upon reading the contracts. 'I take no issue with the drafter of a contract creating a document that leans in favor of the drafting party. In fact, that's expected,' he told us. 'However, there is a problem with a contract when it is so unfair, one-sided, and oppressive that it shocks the conscience. 'Reviewing the terms and considering that sometimes 17-year-olds with no legal counsel will be asked to sign on the dotted line, my takeaway is that this rises to the level of unconscionability unless thoroughly negotiated. I have reviewed dozens of revenue-sharing agreements and none compare.' In a statement given to CBS Sports, FSU said in part that 'Each individual situation will be unique and the hypotheticals are impossible to predict. However, we are committed to continuing to provide an elite experience for our student-athletes in all aspects of their collegiate career.' Injury, of course, is an inherent feature of college football. In our recent book The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game we observe that every 2.6 years of participation in football doubles the chances of contracting the degenerative brain disorder chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and that 91 percent of American college football players' brains examined in a pivotal Boston University study displayed neuropathology consistent with CTE. Similarly, participation in football likely increases the chances of developing Parkinson's disease by 61 percent compared to athletes in other organized sports (and that risk is 2.93 times greater at the college/pro level). In the book, we interviewed twenty-five former big-time college football players about their experiences in the sport. Many of those players suffered extremely debilitating injuries that caused them to lose seasons or even end careers, including knee reconstructions, torn AC joints, neck surgeries, torn achilles tendons, and countless concussions. One player told us, 'Before I got to college, never had an injury. By the time I left college, I had a medical record book of over six hundred pages. From rehab notes, surgery notes, to MRIs. I had over twelve MRIs total, five knee surgeries. This was while I was playing. . . . Later I found out that I had four torn labrum[s]. So I have a torn labrum on both shoulders, torn labrum on both hips.' Thus, the question of players being relieved of their contractually agreed upon compensation as a consequence of injury is hardly academic. It will happen, and to many. 'I think the recently revealed contract details from Florida State exemplifies the current attitude of university officials who have completely lost sight of their jobs as educators,' former UCLA and NFL player Chris Kluwe told us. 'They view college athletes (and students) as a product to be bought and sold and not human beings, which runs contrary to everything the education system should be. 'In a sport like football where athletes are predominately black and in a state like Florida where the current government seems intent on returning to the Antebellum Era, the fact school officials feel the need to include severe language curtailing players' rights to the product of their labor is intensely concerning, and highlights the need for a college players union to protect athletes from would-be modern day plantation owners.' The situation is compounded by the fact that universities don't provide long-term health insurance to the players, leaving them to bear all the associated costs of their physical hardship. One player we spoke to for the book actually told us that 'Long term, just strictly financially … it will have [ended up], like I paid money to play college football.' Until such time as there are genuine occupational health and safety protections befitting a profession with such profound inherent dangers, it's clear that the sport is not actually entering a more humane era. The House Settlement has ushered in little more than a new modality for the same old exploitation and harm. Nathan Kalman-Lamb is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick and co-author of The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game. He is co-host of The End of Sport podcast. Derek Silva is Professor of Sociology and Criminology at King's University College at Western University and co-author of The End of College Football: On the Human Cost of an All-American Game. He is co-host of The End of Sport podcast.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
The Rahsul Faison NIL case that could change NCAA Football
Rahsul Faison isn't just fighting for his final year on the field—he's fighting to shake the foundation of NCAA football. And if he wins, he might change how eligibility and NIL power coexist in college athletics forever. Once a promising Class of 2019 prospect, Faison's path has been anything but straightforward. After grayshirting at Marshall, sitting out 2020 and 2021, and grinding through junior college before shining at Utah State, he exploded for over 1,100 rushing yards in 2024. That breakout season earned him a 4-star transfer rating and a spot in South Carolina's backfield. Advertisement Now, he might not be allowed to play at all. Despite playing just three seasons beyond high school—only one at the JUCO level—Faison's eligibility for 2025 remains in limbo. The NCAA has yet to rule, drawing sharp criticism from Gamecocks head coach Shane Beamer: 'We're frustrated. We've seen similar cases get cleared. We're just asking for fairness.' South Carolina Gamecocks head coach Shane Beamer in November.© Jeff Blake-Imagn Images To fight back, Faison has enlisted NIL attorney Darren Heitner, a national authority on athlete representation. Heitner, who recently won a similar battle for South Carolina basketball's Myles Stute, confirmed Faison's waiver request and promised urgency: 'I will be urging the NCAA to prioritize providing a decision.' Advertisement Heitner's involvement signals this case is bigger than one player—it's about establishing legal clarity in the NIL era. Precedents like Diego Pavia (New Mexico State) and Jett Elad (Rutgers) have shown courts are willing to challenge outdated NCAA limitations. Both were granted extra seasons through legal pressure. If Faison's waiver is denied, litigation is almost certain. If he wins, he not only suits up for South Carolina—he opens the door for others like him. Related: UPDATE: UNC refutes reports about banning Bill Belichick's girlfriend This isn't just about eligibility. It's about athlete empowerment. About equity. About the future of NIL in college football. Related: Miami catches attention with shocking $2M NIL offer for high school recruit Related: ESPN eyes massive deal to secure ninth SEC game rights
