Latest news with #MitWinter
New York Times
7 hours ago
- Business
- New York Times
Tennessee's Zakai Zeigler denied preliminary injunction seeking fifth year of eligibility
Guard Zakai Zeigler will remain a former Tennessee and men's college basketball player after a judge denied his quest for a fifth season of eligibility. On Thursday, a U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Crytzer denied Zeigler a preliminary injunction that would have granted him another season, writing that Zeigler and his lawyers failed to present sufficient evidence that the rule of four seasons of eligibility 'produces substantial anticompetitive effects in the market.' Advertisement So his career as one of the best players in program history is over, and a possible flood of four-year players seeking a fifth year of eligibility is potentially avoided. Mit Winter, a college athletics attorney, told The Athletic when the lawsuit against the NCAA was filed that he thought Zeigler had a '50-50' chance. In response to Thursday's ruling, Winter said this should dissuade athletes in Zeigler's situation from suing, but added that he doesn't think the ruling is 'all that great for the NCAA,' as some may conclude. 'The court did hold that NCAA eligibility rules like the four seasons of competition rule are commercial and subject to antitrust law,' Minter said. 'The NCAA argued the rule isn't commercial and so not subject to antitrust law at all. Some (judges) have agreed, some haven't. So this is another court decision holding NCAA eligibility rules are subject to antitrust law. As a result, attacks on those rules will likely still continue.' Zeigler's representation, Litson PLLC and Garza Law Firm, said when the suit was filed in May that 'the NCAA's rule permitting only four seasons of competition within the five-year eligibility window is an unlawful restraint of trade under federal and state antitrust laws.' The lawsuit claimed that the fifth year of eligibility is the most lucrative for 'the vast majority of athletes' and that Zeigler would suffer irreparable harm without an immediate injunction allowing him to compete in the 2025-26 season. His lawyers claimed he could have earned up to $4 million in a fifth season of college basketball after making $500,000 in his fourth season. Zeigler intended to pursue a graduate degree after graduating in May with a degree in retail and merchandising management. The lawsuit pointed out that Zeigler's class is the first in the era of name, image and likeness compensation for athletes who have not been granted an extra year. Classes that entered school between 2016 and 2020 received the extra year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Advertisement This was different from recent lawsuits challenging eligibility rules in that there are no special circumstances for Zeigler, such as Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia's successful suit to gain another year to play because a court ruled his time in junior college should not count against eligibility. Absent those circumstances, Zeigler's case was not compelling enough. The 5-foot-9 Zeigler, a last-minute addition to Rick Barnes' 2021 recruiting, blew past expectations immediately and had a legendary four-year career. He led the Vols to two of the three Elite Eights in program history, finishing as Tennessee's all-time leader in assists (747), which ranks third in SEC history. He's the only player in SEC history to be named to the All-Defensive team four times and to win SEC Defensive Player of the Year twice. He was All-SEC first team as a junior and senior, averaging 13.6 points and 7.4 assists as a senior. He was also a fan favorite, and when his family's home in New York burned down during his sophomore year, UT fans raised more than $360,000 via GoFundMe.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools
Good morning and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Hold onto your buckets and your babies—this might be a wild ride. College sports is officially entering a new era. Amateurism is over and professionalism is (mostly) here. Athletes can officially get paid directly by their schools without a workaround involving boosters or a name, image, and likeness (NIL) collective. Instead of our usual format, the newsletter this week is focused on this monumental change. Advertisement But first, I want to thank everyone who voted in our survey last week about who you're rooting for in the NBA and NHL finals. Free Agent readership was surprisingly evenly split in both series. Shoutout to the fan who said "Seattle kid. Anyone but Thunder." You'll have your team soon, I'm sure. As for hockey, I was amused by this response: "I want Ron Desantis to have more Stanley Cups than Canada." Three down, 40 to go. Locker Room Links A New Era of College Sports Late on Friday, a federal judge gave final approval to a settlement in House v. NCAA, bringing to an end three antitrust cases against the NCAA and power conferences. It's a huge change: Starting July 1, college sports will spend a decade (at least) in a revenue-sharing system, with schools directly paying athletes for their NIL. Next school year athletic departments will be allowed to pay a combined $20.5 million to athletes across all their sports, with the number rising in the future. (The NCAA and power conferences will also pay almost $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who, dating back to 2016, weren't allowed to sign NIL deals.) Advertisement I talked to Mit Winter, an NIL attorney at Kennyhertz Perry, about how all of this is going to work. Hopefully this answers all the questions you might have about the new system, although a lot of it is still in limbo. I've been following this closely and I still learned a lot from our conversation. If you have lingering questions, email me at freeagent@ and I'll try to figure out an answer for you. Q: With final approval of the House settlement, colleges will be able to directly pay athletes for the first time. Give us a brief breakdown of how these payments are going to work. A: Looking forward for college athletics, schools will be able to directly pay their athletes NIL compensation. So they are actively entering into contracts now with their athletes that spell out, "All right, here's how much we are going to pay you for the use of your NIL in various ways." That's obviously a change from how things have worked in the past in college athletics where the cardinal rule was, "Schools, you cannot pay your athletes." Q: But the athletes still aren't technically employees, so that's causing some other complications, right? A: Correct, they're not currently considered employees. These agreements they're entering into with schools are just NIL licensing agreements. Sometimes they include a services component as well, where the athlete might make appearances or sign autographs or something like that. Advertisement Q: But there are some new restrictions on outside NIL deals with boosters? A: In addition to now allowing schools to directly pay their athletes, the House settlement also contains some new rules around deals athletes can do with NIL collectives and boosters. Athletes will have to disclose to a new clearinghouse entity called the College Sports Commission all third-party NIL deals they do. The College Sports Commission is contracted with Deloitte to do this review process of all of the deals. If an athlete submits a third-party NIL deal and it's determined that the deal is with an associated [to the school] entity or individual, then there's a couple of extra layers of review of that deal. First, the deal has to be for a valid business purpose. Once that determination is made, then the next overview Deloitte will be performing is, "Okay, is the amount being paid to the athlete within what's being called an appropriate range of compensation for the services being provided by this specific athlete?" But if Deloitte determines either the deal's not for a valid business purpose, like they think it's just a "pay-for-play" booster deal in disguise, or if the amount of compensation being provided to the athlete is not within the appropriate range of compensation, then Deloitte will notify the College Sports Commission that, "Hey, there's a problem with this deal." Then at that point it's up to the College Sports Commission to say, "All right, athlete, you can go ahead and do this deal if you want to, but you might be ineligible to participate in college athletics." Advertisement Q: Some believe this might lead to the old ways of under-the-table payments and recruiting violations. A: It's a definite possibility because the amount of NIL compensation that schools could pay their athletes is going to be capped at, for the first year, $20.5 million for the entire year for all of the school's athletes, so not just the football team. And there are some football teams making well over $20 million in NIL compensation from booster and collective deals for this upcoming season. So you can see if you have a football team right now taking $30 million, and then in the future, the cap for all of the school's athletes is going to be $20.5 million, there's obviously a $10 million gap right there, that if you can't do it through legitimate deals, third-party NIL deals and Deloitte is shooting down all these third-party deals, that's when you might go back to under-the-table payments from boosters to win recruiting battles or keep a guy at a school. Q: Talk to us about this from the conference level. A: Every Division I school, no matter what your athletics revenue is, you're going to be able to pay [athletes] up to $20.5 million. That money can come from any source that the university can use to find that money. Obviously, it's going to be easier to come up with that money for some Division I schools than others. Big Ten and SEC schools might have the easiest time just because the amount of TV revenue those conferences receive and then distribute out to their members is higher than any other conference, including the Big 12 and the ACC. But schools, they're going to be heavily reliant on donors for sure, but then there are other potential strategies they're going to use. Advertisement There's a lot of talk about private equity or private capital that some schools might access. There are businesses out there that are very heavily focused now on helping schools generate revenue through different types of creative partnerships, so it's going to be all over the map in terms of how schools are trying to come up with this new $20.5 million. And then you'll have some schools that will cut staff. Some have already cut staff, including Oklahoma, who's an SEC school, obviously, so they've cut staff. You've had some schools announce they are dropping a few sports, like tennis programs have been dropped in some places, swim and dive teams. So it's going to vary from school to school on how they come up with this money. Q: Now, back to the athletes themselves, there are no changes to the transfer system, right? Athletes are still kind of on these one-year contracts, with a fair amount of ability to move at will? A: Yes, correct. The transfer rules are going to stay the same, they're not affected by the House settlement at all. Although schools and conferences would love to be able to put some more transfer restrictions back in place and they're hopeful that Congress will pass a law that gives them an antitrust exemption that would then allow them to put some of those transfer rules back in place because courts have held right now that those transfer rules violate antitrust law. Some of the contracts that schools are entering into with their athletes, they have some provisions that are trying to prevent as much movement as there has been, like buyouts and clawbacks and things like that. [It] remains to be seen whether those will be effective or not in limiting movement, so we'll just have to see how that plays out. Advertisement Q: There are already some lawsuits challenging the current NCAA eligibility rules, but what lawsuits are coming next, or are already in play after the House settlement? A: A big one's going to be Title IX. There will be a lot of Title IX lawsuits, because as we talked about earlier, [schools] will be able to pay out $20.5 million to their athletes, and most schools are planning on paying out, at least if you are a [Power Four] school with a football team, are paying out 75 percent to 80 percent of that $20 million to the football team, around 15 percent to the men's basketball team, maybe 5 percent to the women's basketball team, and then 5 percent to other sports, which might be softball, baseball, whatever other sport a school chooses—85 percent to 90 percent of that $20 million is going to go to male athletes. Some people think that's not in compliance with Title IX, other people think it is. It's a gray area right now, there's no black-and-white law. That will be litigated probably in lots of places and there will be probably lots of lawsuits filed against schools on that issue. I also think we will see some litigation related to the salary cap, because it was not agreed to by a player's association where, like in pro sports, the salary caps and things like that are collectively bargained with a players association, which makes them exempt from antitrust law. But this salary cap in college athletics is not going to be exempt from antitrust law. So future college athletes coming into college athletics will be able to bring damages, lawsuits, challenging that salary cap, so I think we'll definitely see some of that. I think we'll probably see some more employment litigation for determination that college athletes are employees. There's already one big case pending on that issue called the Johnson v. NCAA case in federal court. It said college athletes can be employees, it didn't say they are. It said, "They can, and here's the test to determine whether they are." That was an appellate court, it's now down at the trial court level to actually make that determination. But I definitely think we'll see some more of that litigation, especially now that you have the schools contracting with athletes. It potentially makes that employment argument stronger than it was before. Advertisement This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. Replay of the Week Lots of great candidates this week that you've probably already seen, like the Tyrese Haliburton game-winner, a brawl in the Stanley Cup Finals, and perhaps the best home run robbery you'll ever see (the A's still lost). But here's a wild golf shot you probably missed (and that wasn't even the craziest golf shot this weekend). That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, the UFL championship game featuring the D.C. Defenders against the Michigan Panthers (Saturday, 8 P.M., on FOX). Many are calling it the Jason Bowl due to my dual loyalties. The post Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools appeared first on
Associated Press
17-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
College football players chasing dollars with portal open and House settlement approval delayed
The opening of the college football transfer portal has created a dash for cash. The delay in approving the House vs. NCAA antitrust settlement means the rules around compensation are not yet in place, blowing up the market for the amount of money players can receive from their schools' name, image and likeness collectives or from third-party endorsement deals. More than 400 players have entered the portal since it opened Wednesday, according to tracking by 247Sports. Athletes have until April 25 to enter, and they clearly have leverage until the settlement is approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in California. 'It's basically a free pass to pay guys as much as you want to pay them right now,' said Mit Winter, a Missouri sports law attorney who advises agents, collectives and schools. His advice to athletes: 'Get your deal signed now before the House settlement gets approved and make sure the payments are made from a collective before July 1.' Once the House settlement is approved, any NIL deals with a collective or third party over $600 must be reported to a clearinghouse, where it will be vetted to determine if the pay is commensurate with the service provided by the athlete and that it is in line with the athlete's fair market value. July 1 is the expected date for the settlement to take effect. Jacob Piasecki and Stefan Aguilera, co-founders of the Austin, Texas-based A&P Sports Agency, have been busy since winter negotiating 'frontloaded' NIL contracts that will pay all or most of the money to their clients before July 1. 'It's like an 11th hour now,' Piasecki said. 'We're getting to the point where collectives are going to be highly scrutinized and everything is going to be under a microscope.' Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois labor and sports law professor, said it would have been advantageous for the schools if Wilkin had given final approval to the settlement in the days between the April 7 settlement hearing and the opening of the portal this week. 'The lack of closure,' LeRoy said, 'adds one more element of chaos.' Uncertainy reigns The scramble for pay has disrupted college sports the past few seasons, particularly with athletes now free to transfer without having to sit out the following season. This past year alone, quarterback Nico Iamaleava left Tennessee when he was set to reportedly earn $2.2 million next season and QB Matthew Sluka left UNLV, saying the school didn't come through with $100,000. In addition to NIL, athletes also will be able to get paid through revenue sharing beginning July 1. Schools are now sending players term sheets or memorandums of understanding regarding pay. Each school will be allowed to distribute $20.5 million to their athletes this year, with football and men's basketball players likely to receive the lion's share. Considering some schools had unofficial NIL payrolls at or near $20 million just for football last year and that there soon will be greater policing of collective and third-party NIL deals, some of the highest-paid players will take pay cuts this year unless their current deals are renegotiated before House approval. Piasecki and Aguilera predicted a random Power Four quarterback who earned $2 million in 2024 might make only half that in 2025 because of the rev-share and NIL caps. Winter agreed some players could make less, 'but they still will be able to negotiate within whatever budget a school has. There's still going to be collectives at a lot of schools that will come in to fill gaps or go over that cap as well.' How would a collective fill a pay gap if any deal over $600 must go through the clearinghouse? 'The way it's envisioned now, the athletes are responsible for reporting deals with collectives and boosters to the new enforcement entity,' Winter said. 'Probably like now, there'll be lots of deals that don't get reported.' Court rights loom Experts say lawsuits are a certainty, noting limits have been placed on rev-share and NIL pay without collective bargaining involving the athletes and their representatives. Because college athletes are not considered employees, collective bargaining is not required. Conferences and schools have lobbied Congress to codify the House settlement and bake in some level of antitrust protection. As the settlement is written, if the clearinghouse disallows an NIL deal, the athlete is ineligible if they go forward with it. Otherwise, they can renegotiate the deal or go to arbitration and try to show why the deal is within fair market value. Winter said the formula for determining fair market value is nebulous. He said it's his understanding the athlete's performance, social media followers and the market in which their school is located will be factors. 'Who's to say what's fair market value if someone wants to pay someone X?' Winter said. 'How can you say their fair market value is not X?' As for enforcement, the power conferences are establishing an enforcement arm to oversee adherence to the salary cap and clearinghouse and levy penalties on violators. 'One element that's in the background that's going to keep inserting itself into the foreground is these schools want to create a rules structure for everybody else except themselves,' LeRoy said. 'That's always been the history of NCAA competition. We'll have a rules committee, we'll have enforcement. The underlying behavior is we find ways to shortcut the rules, spin the rules, even cheat on the rules. 'I look at this new regime as, 'We're setting up rules, everybody knows what the rules are.' And then everybody is thinking about how can you game it, how can you circumvent it?' ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and
