Latest news with #PowerConferences
New York Times
a day ago
- Business
- New York Times
Power conferences hiring MLB exec to lead enforcement of new era as College Sports Commission CEO
Bryan Seeley, a high-ranking executive at Major League Baseball and former assistant U.S. attorney, will be hired by the Power conferences to lead their newly formed college sports enforcement body, a spokesperson for those conferences told The Athletic. The College Sports Commission will oversee rules related to the new revenue-sharing system coming to NCAA Division I athletics as part of the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit settlement that was approved by a federal judge on Friday, June 6. The CSC is scheduled to be up and running on July 1. Seeley will be the commission's chief executive officer, in charge of enforcing the rev-share cap schools must adhere to, running the clearinghouse for name, image and likeness deals athletes sign, and doling out punishment to rule violators. Seeley will report to a board comprised of the commissioners of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti previously worked with Seeley in MLB. Advertisement The NCAA will still handle the enforcement of eligibility and academic rules, but regulating how athletes are paid will be in the hands of Seeley, the MLB as senior vice president of investigations. In more than a decade at the league, he rose to executive vice president for legal and operations, overseeing investigations, compliance, state government relations and sports betting. Seeley headed MLB's sign-stealing investigation that led to the Astros and Red Sox being disciplined. He also oversaw inquiries into sexual assault allegations against former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer and Tampa Bay Rays shortstop Wander Franco, who is currently on the restricted list and on trial in the Dominican Republic. Seeley's departure is a loss for MLB, but his successor is in place. In recent years, the day-to-day affairs of the league's Department of Investigations were largely handled by Moira Weinberg, MLB's senior vice president for investigations, who now takes over the department. Seeley's portfolio, however, had grown. He was key to MLB's efforts in sports gambling, helping set policy and lobbying strategies. He also played a central role during the league's COVID-19 pandemic operations. Some of his work was focused in the Dominican Republic, a country that produces many top baseball players. How MLB will distribute the full scope of Seeley's duties beyond DOI wasn't immediately clear. Seeley was hired in September 2014, when current commissioner Rob Manfred was months away from beginning his tenure. Then-commissioner Bud Selig and Manfred established the DOI in 2008 on a recommendation made the prior year in the Mitchell Report, an investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in baseball that the league hired former U.S. Sen. George J. Mitchell of Maine to conduct. But half a decade into the new department's operation, Manfred and then commissioner Bud Selig wanted to start anew. Advertisement DOI's work on the Biogenesis scandal, which centered on star player Alex Rodriguez and the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs out of an anti-aging clinic in Florida, had produced a slew of gaffes and headlines. The original iteration of the department was run by ex-cops. Manfred and his right-hand man, current MLB deputy commissioner Dan Halem, believed installing lawyers in their place would bring several benefits. One was that league investigators would be more buttoned-up and by the book, with the benefit of attorney-client privilege as well. But they also felt lawyers would be better positioned to handle DOI's overall workload. DOI investigators often have to work with other attorneys and prosecutors. Manfred and Halem, both lawyers, thought DOI's leaders should be able to speak the same language as those they were often talking to. White-collar investigations require evidence gathering, witness testimony, and sometimes defense of the findings. In baseball, if DOI is building a case against a player, that will sometimes mean presenting a case to an arbitrator. Testimony has to stand up. Power conference leaders are hoping to replicate a similar structure with the College Sports Commission and had targeted candidates for the CEO position with backgrounds as judges and lawyers. In recent years, NCAA enforcement has lost its teeth, with schools emboldened to push back — sometimes with the help of their state's attorney general. The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization that relies heavily on self-reporting and cooperation from schools to investigate and enforce rules. Conference leaders are hoping the College Sports Commission can bring more heft and investigative independence to the enforcement. Conferences are asking member schools to agree in writing to comply and adhere to CSC enforcement decisions, which will include the use of outside mediators. Advertisement Seeley was the youngest candidate MLB interviewed for the revised top job at DOI. He had served as a federal prosecutor in Washington D.C. since 2006. Starting in 2010, he focused on white-collar cases and fraud investigations, including public corruption investigations involving bribery and kickbacks. Every major baseball scandal of the last decade would have crossed Seeley's desk at some point, and the department itself sometimes took criticism in the process. For example: Many fans believed MLB's investigations into electronic sign-stealing were unsatisfying. But like every top job at the commissioner's office, Seeley's role existed ultimately to further the interests of MLB and the sport's owners. Sports leagues don't typically court growing and widening scandals, they seek to quell them.
New York Times
a day ago
- Business
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
Forbes
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
The NCAA And Power 4 Are Playing Chicken With A Federal Judge
The NCAA and Power Conferences have doubled down on roster limits, refusing to budge by even allowing for gradual implementation despite feedback from Federal District Judge Claudia Wilken strongly suggesting they at least 'grandfather in' athletes currently on rosters. Directly defying a request from a federal judge is a risky maneuver, particularly when the NCAA and Power Conferences have structured their entire future operations around the assumption that Judge Wilken will approve this settlement. If the NCAA has a coherent, good-faith argument for refusing to phase in roster limits over time, they have not been forthcoming with it. The NCAA and Power 4 are playing a game of chicken with Judge Wilken with no discernible upside. The feedback from Judge Wilken came as part of the final fairness hearing for the House settlement last Monday in a Federal courtroom in California. The bustle surrounding the hearing ultimately came to a relatively anti-climactic ending. Judge Wilken asked the two sides that crafted the settlement agreement (a class of athlete plaintiffs and the NCAA and Power Conferences as defendants) to consider the feedback they received in the 7-hour hearing and come back with any necessary changes in a week. That shouldn't be interpreted to mean that Judge Wilken thinks the settlement is severely flawed, as she conceded that she thought it was a 'good settlement,' before requesting that she not be quoted on that (she has been, several times). The hearing was an opportunity for the parties who crafted the settlement to give their final arguments regarding the settlement being 'fair, adequate, and reasonable,' which is the standard on which Judge Wilken must make her decision. It was also an opportunity for those who filed formal objections to the settlement to be heard. According to Sam Ehrlich's College Sports Litigation tracker, 16 formal objections were filed, most of which were filed on behalf of several parties, some of whom prefer to remain anonymous. The objections raise issues with nearly every major aspect of the settlement, including the revenue-sharing limit, gender equity and Title IX concerns, roster limits, and the calculation of damages paid to former athletes. Unfortunately for many objectors, Judge Wilken made very clear at the beginning of the hearing which issues she was most interested in: third-party NIL limitations and roster limits. She emphasized that this was not a Title IX or an employment law case, but an antitrust case. This does not mean Judge Wilken thinks the settlement aligns with gender equity standards or that Title IX does not apply to revenue sharing. On the contrary, she (and plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey Kessler) emphasized that a Title IX case can still be brought separately. This meant that the several objectors who were in the room to discuss their problems with gender equity/Title concerns or the calculation of back damages were mostly speaking just to be heard, as their arguments were not going to sway the judge. (For more on the gender equity concerns surrounding the settlement, read Forbes contributor Allison Smith's article.) There was also a surprising amount of time discussing issues surrounding the injunctive relief class (i.e. current and future athletes). Judge Wilken frequently brought up the hypothetical '10-year-old playing on the asphalt' that is bound by this settlement despite having no real opportunity to object and not having their interests represented in settlement negotiations. The parties made some minor changes to the language of the release in the settlement. Two brothers bonding on the court. getty Third-party NIL restrictions were a major reason Judge Wilken initially declined to give the settlement preliminary approval in September. The terms of the settlement require athletes to report any third-party (i.e. not from the school) NIL deal worth over $600 to a clearinghouse. That clearinghouse would first determine whether the deal was with an 'associated entity' (NCAA code for booster). If the clearinghouse determines that the payor is an associated entity, then they will determine 'if they are within a reasonable range of compensation and made with the purpose of using a student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.' Despite this being one of the few issues that Wilken directly expressed an interest in, it got surprisingly little airtime in the hearing and was not addressed in the Defendants' reply brief filed Monday night. Roster limits have been the most contentious issue before, during, and after Monday's hearing. Two of the most notable objectors to speak at the hearing were among the few who didn't work for fancy three or four-name law firms. Gracelyn Laudermilch, a high school senior track and cross–country athlete, and Ganon Flynn, a current Division-I swimmer, both spoke about how the roster limits and their immediate implementation have already impacted current and future athletes. Loudermilch, in particular, gave compelling testimony about how she was offered a spot on a Division-I roster, only to have that offer later rescinded when the school announced it was opting in to the terms of the settlement. Flynn made the case that there would have been far more objectors to the settlement, but current athletes believed that coming forward would result in their schools cutting them from the roster. Judge Wilken also had strong comments regarding the roster limits. Near the beginning of the hearing, when plaintiffs' lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler was extolling the benefit of removing scholarship limits in favor of roster limits, Judge Wilken called it 'small comfort' to those who do not get the roster spot or scholarship. Wilken also seemed persuaded by the several objectors who argued for a phasing-in period for roster limits (or grandfathering in players already on rosters). She encouraged the defendants to consider amending the agreement, saying, 'It's not that many people. It's not that much money… It would save a lot of goodwill and angst and unhappiness from a lot of students and their parents.' Even with that input and feedback, the NCAA and Power Conferences were unwilling to budge on their roster limits, potentially putting the whole settlement at risk. In their reply brief and in the hearing, counsel for the NCAA, Rakesh Kilaru, emphasized that the roster limits represent a fair compromise and that the agreement would not have happened without them. They have further argued that limiting roster sizes is a part of all organized sports. They've said that the roster limits also represent a tradeoff for scholarship limits (as one objector astutely pointed out, roster limits are still scholarship limits). While these may all be justifications for why the NCAA should be able to implement roster limits, they still haven't made any good arguments for why they want to do it. Some may point to competitive balance as an issue. While it's true that all professional sports have roster limits to help prevent talent hoarding and promote competitive balance, those do not work out the same in college athletics (it's also worth reiterating that professional roster limits are collectively bargained for). There is no draft system in college sports. Athletes are free to go play for whatever school wants them. Schools cannot just draft and hoard young talent. Further, professional players are frequently locked into team control for 4+ years by the team that drafted them. College athletes have a much easier time changing schools if they are unhappy with their playing time or compensation via the transfer portal. College athletes have shown a propensity to go somewhere that they can play right away rather than 'wait their turn' at more prestigious programs. This has created more distribution of talent across the Power Conference level to the extent that SMU and Indiana, who have not historically been relevant in the national football space, made the College Football Playoff last season over traditional powerhouses like LSU and Alabama. The hypothetical 106th player on Alabama's football roster would not be an All-American at Vanderbilt. Cost-control for schools has been another frequently cited reason for roster limits. Much like the competitive balance argument, this falls apart pretty quickly. There is no requirement under the settlement terms or under the current rules that every player gets a scholarship. Having several tuition-paying players (walk-ons) on the team is economically beneficial to schools, not detrimental. If it becomes a budgetary issue to outfit and practice with additional players, schools and coaches could easily limit rosters as their needs dictate. Jeffrey Kessler extolls the great benefit that the settlement agreement brings to college athletes in the form of vastly increased scholarship opportunities. During the hearing he specifically brought up the increase in track and field scholarship limits (up to 45 from 12.6). While Kessler is technically correct (often the best kind of correct for a lawyer), the practical application of the settlement is going to look a lot different. While the settlement allows for schools to provide more scholarships, they are not required to. Combine that with the fact that any additional scholarships would count against the proposed revenue sharing cap under the settlement, and the likelihood that schools will actually offer additional scholarships is all but zero. Schools have already indicated that they will spend as much of their cap space on football and men's basketball as they can get away with. They will funnel that money to top-end talent instead. Kessler should know better (and almost certainly does). The consensus among legal experts remains that the NCAA's unwillingness to budge on roster limits will not be enough to torpedo the settlement. However, it greatly increases the likelihood that she will decline approval. Again, implementing roster limits as an unnecessary competitive balance measure would be an odd hill to die on. The future the NCAA has hoped to create currently lies in Judge Wilken's hands, and despite the fact that she made reasonable and clear requests regarding roster limits, they have essentially dared her to decline approval.
