Latest news with #PowerFive
USA Today
08-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
NCAA settlement instituting revenue sharing system faces seven different appeals
The recent $2.8 billion settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences is set to face seven appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based on filings made by a deadline that passed the night of Monday, July 7. None of the appeal notices were accompanied by a motion seeking to put at least a temporary stop to the going-forward aspects of the agreement, which included schools being allowed to pay athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness, beginning July 1. Also, beginning July 1, schools that choose to make NIL deals with their athletes are no longer subject to sport-by-sport scholarship limits. But those restrictions have been replaced by roster limits, subject to exceptions for certain athletes who were on teams during the 2024-25 school year and recruits who had been assured of roster spots for the 2025-26 school year. There were 73 valid, timely objections filed out of nearly 390,000 current and former athletes covered by the litigation while U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken considered whether to grant final approval to the settlement. She granted that approval on June 6. Among the athletes being represented in appeals are current Florida State quarterback Thomas Castellanos, who is involved with two appeal efforts; former two-time national women's lacrosse player of the year Charlotte North; former wrestler Sebastian Rivera, who won a bronze medal at the Paris Olympics and now is an assistant coach at Columbia; and former men's basketball player Braeden Anderson, who now works as an attorney. The full range of issues that will be argued in the appeals remains to be seen because the appeal notices followed a standard format and were not accompanied by a legal argument. But based on the objections that the appealing parties made to Wilken previously, they are likely to include: ▶The applicability of Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, to the settlement's sport-by-sport allocations of damages money that heavily favors football and men's basketball players. ▶Whether the settlement's annual per-school cap on new benefits that can be provided to athletes, including the NIL money paid directly from the schools to the athletes, constitutes another illegal limit on athlete compensation. ▶The fairness of the damages allocations to walk-on athletes who sometimes ended up becoming more prominent than their teammates on scholarship, and to some athletes in lower-revenue sports. ▶The adequacy of the plaintiffs' lawyers' representation of the interests of athletes other than football and men's basketball players and the adequacy of the notice and claims submissions process for athletes. Other than the lawyers who filed the first notice of appeal on June 11, many of the lawyers for the appealing parties have either been willing to provide only brief and general comments about their planned arguments to USA TODAY Sports, or they have been unavailable for comment. But Patrick Bradford, an attorney representing Castellanos and Anderson, said in an interview July 8: "This is a settlement that will pay kids less than the market would bear and say, 'That's OK.' " Bradford raised the possibility of pursuing the matter to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Steve Berman, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said in an email July 8: 'We remain 100 percent optimistic of our chances of success and are disappointed that these objectors are appealing given the thoroughness and soundness of Judge Wilken's decision. Most of the objectors have not appealed and we thank them for not joining in any effort to hold up payments to the student (a)thletes which is what the appealing objectors are doing.' The appeals could significantly delay the start of payments of damages money to tens of thousands of athletes and to the plaintiffs' lawyers, who have requested that they be awarded hundreds of millions of dollars from the total settlement pool. These payments are set to occur over a 10-year period. As approved by Wilken, the settlement says that in the event of appeals of this nature, the NCAA and the conferences would begin making damages payments, but the money would be held in escrow — not paid to athletes or lawyers — until appeals are completed. Initial scheduling instructions from the 9th Circuit for five of the appeals that were filed called for written arguments to be filed by various dates in September by those appealing and for responses to be filed by various dates in October. However, no scheduling instructions have been issued yet for two appeals. Berman said plaintiffs will ask the 9th Circuit to consolidate the appeals, so they follow a single calendar. According to the 9th Circuit's website, oral arguments in appeals of civil cases occur approximately six to 12 months from the notice of appeal date, or approximately four months from completion of briefing. The site said 'most cases are decided within 3 months to a year after submission,' so even if the 9th Circuit chooses not to hold oral argument in this case, it's unlikely a ruling will be issued before early 2026.
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Oklahoma Sooners earn commitment from 2026 4-Star TE Tyler Ruxer
The Oklahoma Sooners added another blue-chip prospect to their 2026 recruiting class, picking up a commitment from four-star tight end Tyler Ruxer on Monday evening. Ruxer is the No. 9 tight end in the 2026 class, according to On3. The Sooners beat out West Virginia, Duke, and Northwestern. Out of Lincoln City, Indiana, the 6-foot-4, 220-pound tight end also held offers from Power Four programs like Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Iowa, Louisville, Minnesota, and Purdue. Advertisement He's the second tight end added to the 2026 class after Ryder Mix committed back in June of 2024. But the Sooners need help at tight end. It's been a position that hasn't produced to expectations the last two seasons and has had a number of their young players battle injuries. Ruxer adds a dynamic receiving threat to the Sooners' offense. He played wide receiver for Heritage Hills, so he'll need to make the transition to playing in-line at the traditional tight end spot. But he's a good route runner and displays the ability to make plays down the field. Ruxer shows off the kind of speed that will challenge linebackers in the middle of the field and will help stretch the defense vertically. That speed allows him to be a threat after the catch. According to his Hudl profile, he accounted for 43 receptions for 893 yards and 12 touchdowns. More: Oklahoma Sooners 2026 recruiting commitment tracker Tyler Ruxer's recruiting profile Watch Tyler Ruxer highlights on Hudl Advertisement Vitals Projected Position Tight End Height 6-foot-4 Weight 220 pounds Hometown Lincoln City, Indiana Ratings Site Stars Overall Position State Rivals 3 -- -- -- ESPN -- -- -- -- 247Sports 3 3 27 2 247Sports Composite 3 3 25 3 On3 4 4 9 1 On3 Industry 3 722 41 6 Social Media Contact/Follow us @SoonersWire on X, and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Oklahoma news, notes, and opinions. You can also follow John on X @john9williams. This article originally appeared on Sooners Wire: Oklahoma Sooners earn commitment from dynamic TE prospect Tyler Ruxer
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How NIL Spending Is Reshaping College Football's Competitive Landscape
How NIL Spending Is Reshaping College Football's Competitive Landscape originally appeared on Athlon Sports. In 2021, Cincinnati made history by becoming the first Group of Five program to reach the College Football Playoff. For many, it was proof that the so-called gap between the Power Five and G5 wasn't insurmountable. Advertisement But in 2025, that proof feels distant. Not because the quality of G5 football has declined, but because the financial structure of the sport has changed entirely. As college athletics enters the first full cycle of NCAA-sanctioned revenue sharing and matured NIL collectives, the economic realities facing Group of Five programs have become unavoidable. And nowhere is that shift more visible than in the SEC. While the Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12 are also adapting to this new era, the SEC stands as the clearest representation of what the modern Power conference looks like. For the sake of this comparison, it serves as a fair and conservative barometer for the Power Four as a whole. Florida Gators quarterback DJ Lagway (2) shakes hands while entering the locker Pendleton-Imagn Images NIL Spending and Revenue Structures in 2025 Starting in 2025, every school within the Power Four is permitted to distribute up to $20.5 million to athletes through the NCAA's new revenue-sharing model. According to projections from SEC schools are expected to meet that cap across the board. On top of that, the average SEC collective will provide another $13.95 million in NIL compensation. Advertisement That puts the total average for SEC athlete compensation at roughly $34.5 million per school. In contrast, Group of Five programs are projected to operate on significantly smaller margins. Here's how the averages stack up: Conference Revenue Share (Avg.) NIL Collective (Avg.) Total Compensation SEC (P4 Proxy) $20.5M $13.95M $34.45M American $2.99M $1.6M $4.6M Mountain West $4.37M $1.7M $6.0M Sun Belt $2.02M $1.0M $3.0M MAC $1.90M $800K $2.7M Conference USA $1.63M $600K $2.2M These figures reflect projected funding availability, not guaranteed athlete payouts, as collective disbursements vary based on structure, fundraising stability, and timing. Even within the Power Four, there are schools operating more conservatively than others. But as a whole, the SEC provides a useful benchmark for how far the top tier of college football has moved from the rest of the landscape. Advertisement How NIL Impacts G5 Player Retention in College Football For years, the most difficult challenge for G5 programs was attracting high-end talent. Now, it's keeping it. Player development has long been a hallmark of successful mid-major programs. But the same qualities that make G5 players appealing, such as early playing time, system fit, and on-field production, also make them targets in the transfer portal. One G5 staffer described his situation plainly. 'We can't offer more. We can only offer first,' he said. 'And most of the time, that's not enough anymore.' When a starting wide receiver in the American makes $15,000 and hears from a Power Four program offering $75,000, the leverage disappears quickly. And with NIL deals now embedded in roster planning, that gap becomes less about poaching and more about structure. Texas Longhorns quarterback Arch J. Rebilas-Imagn Images The SEC's NIL Spending as a Model for Power Four Programs Programs like Texas and LSU are projected to spend over $40 million on athlete compensation in 2025. Some, like Texas Tech, are experimenting with consolidated booster-collective models that push total payrolls past $50 million. Advertisement This is not just a reaction to NIL. It is the beginning of a structured financial era. Some Power Four programs are segmenting their NIL spend by position group. Others are introducing multi-year deals and retention bonuses that incentivize players to stay through graduation. Meanwhile, many G5 schools are still assembling short-term packages through local sponsors, donor drives, and limited institutional support. The systems are fundamentally different in scale, planning, and stability. NIL Disparity and the Future of G5 Competitiveness These numbers don't disqualify G5 programs from being competitive. But they do redefine what that competitiveness looks like. Advertisement A 12-0 G5 season that earns a Playoff bid remains possible. Building it into a sustained era of success, however, now requires navigating an environment where roster stability is directly tied to financial infrastructure. In a model where one tier of programs is investing in multi-year continuity and another is forced to rebuild annually, the pressure is no longer just on recruiting. It's on retention, investment alignment, and consistent access to capital. South Carolina Gamecocks quarterback LaNorris Sellers could be the 2026 number 1 draft pick.© Jeremy Reper-Imagn Images Closing: A Financial Divide That's Redefining College Football College football has never been a level playing field. But as athlete compensation becomes a core function of program operations, the separation between tiers of the sport is becoming formalized. Advertisement Programs at the top are managing rosters with continuity in mind. Programs at the bottom are often just trying to hold theirs together long enough to stay relevant. Related: Will NIL Dreams Crush Team Chemistry in College Sports? The sport may still be governed by one rulebook, but the terms of competition are no longer the same. The playoff is expanding. The revenue models are not. The question now is not whether a G5 team can make a run. It's whether any program without long-term financial planning can remain in the conversation for more than a year at a time. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jul 2, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
College Sports Commission Gives off Nonprofit Web Impression
What's in a (domain) name? Within an hour of Judge Claudia Wilken having granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, the newly established College Sports Commission's website went live, featuring a homepage headline declaring 'a new day in college sports' beside a picture of female water polo players. Advertisement More from The commission, which was established by the NCAA's Power Five conferences—the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and Pac-12—to police college athlete NIL transactions, registered as a Delaware limited liability company back in April, as Sportico was first to report. This sets the College Sports Commission (CSC) apart from the numerous nationally recognized 'commissions,' many of which are government agencies—such as the FEC, FTC, FCC and the other SEC—or federally recognized nonprofit organizations exempt from income tax. Aside from a small number of postseason football bowl games, the CSC is also unique in being the only for-profit governing body, association or multi-school organization in college sports. That means unlike the NCAA, its member intuitions and major conferences—all of which are federally registered 501(c)(3) organizations—the commission is not legally bound to operate for exclusively charitable purposes; does not have to publicly disclose its annual tax return (that includes financial details such as its annual legal expenditures or the compensation of its new CEO, Bryan Seeley); and faces no restrictions on its involvement in political campaigns. Advertisement However, the CSC's website lends a different impression, starting with its URL: Although any entity can register or use dot-org domain extensions, they typically and historically are associated with nonprofits. Notably, if paradoxically, all but one of the P5 conferences ( now employ dot-com domains for their official sites ( and even though each of the leagues are 501(c)(3) charities. In an email, a commission spokesperson told Sportico that despite its legal structure, it is 'not intended to be a for-profit company.' The CSC obtained its website's URL on April 2—a week-and-a-half before its Delaware LLC was formed. Simultaneously, as confirmed by the spokesperson, it also obtained a dot-com version. Nevertheless, is currently a parked domain that does not redirect to the active, dot-org site. On its FAQ page, the CSC describes itself as 'the organization overseeing the new system that allows schools to share revenue directly with student-athletes and ensures that NIL deals made with student-athletes are fair and comply with the rules.' While it distinguishes itself from the NCAA, the current version of the site offers little clarity about who controls the commission or how it is structured. Notably, its official legal name—College Sports Commission LLC—does not appear anywhere on the site, including in the 'Terms of Service' or 'Privacy Policy.' Advertisement Meanwhile, the website for the NIL Go system, managed by Deloitte, uses a dot-com domain name. According to the CSC spokesperson, the domain was initially purchased by Deloitte on behalf of the joint NCAA/P5 settlement implementation committee, and is now in the process of transferring ownership to the commission. Meanwhile, the dot-com website for the College Athlete Payments (CAP) platform, developed by LBi Software and 'overseen' by the commission, is owned by LBi. Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. Advertisement The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. Advertisement In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. Advertisement These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congress introduces college sports bill proposing national rules
