Latest news with #Wilken
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How Louisville Athletics is planning for future as House settlement decision looms
AMELIA ISLAND, FL. — If Judge Claudia Wilken denies the seminal House v. NCAA settlement this week, the University of Louisville will likely move forward with paying its athletes directly, athletics director Josh Heird told The Courier Journal. 'That's probably the path we would go down,' Heird said at ACC spring meetings. 'Just from the standpoint of the more control you can have of the situation, the better. It's been a little bit disjointed with outside entities, collectives, doing things. So I would presume that's the road we would go down.' Advertisement The settlement, which received preliminary approval in October, would provide $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. It would also bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. Heird has 'a lot of confidence' that Wilken will approve the agreement, though one aspect of it has delayed her decision by more than a month. Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. This structure would cause thousands of athletes across the country to lose their spots. Heird said this would have 'little to no impact' on Louisville, as its rosters are 'relatively small by comparison with other peer institutions.' Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the April 7 final approval hearing in Oakland, California. Their testimony clearly moved Wilken, who gave attorneys two weeks to amend the roster limit concept. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — agreed to an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. On May 7, Wilken said she would allow objectors to file responses to the NCAA and power conferences by Tuesday. The plaintiffs and NCAA have until Friday to respond in turn. As athletics departments around the nation brace for Wilken's decision — an approval or denial, the latter of which would destabilize college sports and likely send the lawsuit back to trial — how might U of L move forward? Advertisement Well, several states have laws permitting schools to directly pay college athletes — including Kentucky. The commonwealth passed Senate Bill 3 in March, amending its previous name, image and likeness legislation so state universities could legally operate within the House settlement's proposed revenue-sharing model. Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reported last week that athletics directors predict many schools will use state law to begin paying athletes, regardless of whether Wilken denies the settlement. One AD told Yahoo!: 'What can the NCAA do about it?' Louisville will probably take advantage of state law in this way, Heird said. Should the settlement get denied, U of L wouldn't be beholden to the $20.5 million cap. Instead, paying athletes would just 'be a budget constraint,' Heird said. 'But I'd contend it's a budget constraint now.' If the settlement is approved, U of L plans to distribute $20.5 million among its varsity sports during the 2025-26 athletics year. There are 'a handful of variables,' Heird said, that U of L is considering as far as how to divvy up that cash: One, will the House settlement, once/if approved, provide any guidance on this front? Advertisement Two, what sports are driving revenue? (Historically, football and men's basketball.) Three, what sports are bringing eyeballs and interest to the school? (Football, men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball and baseball quickly come to mind.) And four, where does Louisville have opportunities to be especially successful? (See No. 3.) While Louisville has a general idea of the percentage breakdown, Heird declined to share those numbers by sport, as they're 'not set in stone yet.' However, Front Office Sports reported that power conference schools are expected to dedicate 75% of the $20.5 million toward their football programs. Texas Tech's reported breakdown gives 74% to football, 17% to 18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.8% to baseball and the rest to other sports. That's $15.17 million for football, $3.69 million for men's basketball and $410,000 for women's basketball. Advertisement About 80 miles east of Louisville, the University of Kentucky approved the creation of Champions Blue, LLC, last month in an effort to keep up with college sports' changing landscape. The LLC will effectively function as a holding company containing UK Athletics so it can more quickly, efficiently and creatively adapt to changes in the industry. Champions Blue will be chaired by UK President Eli Capilouto and otherwise made up of "outside experts." These experts, athletics director Mitch Barnhart said, will be folks in professional sports with connections to UK, business associates of the athletics department and other UK officials who could provide an outside-of-sports perspective. The aim of the board is to help UK better understand the landscape of college athletics as it continues to evolve during and after the proposed House settlement. As such, the board will be charged with meeting with Barnhart and Capilouto regularly to discuss opportunities for revenue growth. Is U of L looking into a similar kind of restructuring? 'With everything going on around college athletics, it's a good time to take a step back and observe what others are doing,' Heird said. 'And, as I've told our staff, we don't need to be out in front on anything that we're doing. Let's let the landscape evolve a little bit, look at the pros and cons of what others are doing and what makes the most sense for us. And then once we feel like we have the information we need to make a decision, we'll make a decision.' Advertisement Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@ and follow her on X @petitus25. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: House v. NCAA settlement: How Louisville is preparing to pay athletes
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
House settlement explained: How Louisville Cardinals, Kentucky Wildcats would be impacted
Roughly five years after its initial filing, the House v. NCAA settlement is still awaiting a decision from the courts. It's one of the most talked-about lawsuits in the history of college athletics. And for good reason. If approved, the settlement would establish a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing model between schools and athletes. Advertisement Industry leaders have been operating for months under the assumption that the agreement would go through this spring and go into effect July 1, including those at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. But they've yet to receive the all-clear. Here's everything you need to know about the settlement, including how Kentucky's two major schools are planning for two different futures: one where the agreement is approved and one where it's not. What is the House v. NCAA settlement? The proposed House settlement stems from the merging of three different lawsuits filed by current and former Division I athletes against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Advertisement Plaintiffs Grant House (former Arizona State swimmer) and Sedona Prince (former Texas, Oregon and TCU basketball player) filed a class-action complaint in June 2020 alleging that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes' ability to profit off their name, image and likeness. Former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard and former Duke defensive tackle DeWayne Carter filed similar complaints against the NCAA and power conferences. Judge Claudia Wilken, who previously presided over the Alston v. NCAA lawsuit finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust laws by capping the value of athletic scholarships, later consolidated the House suit with Hubbard and Carter. On Oct. 7, Wilken granted the House settlement preliminary approval. That version of the settlement would provide $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. It would also bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. But one aspect of the agreement has delayed her final decision by nearly two months. Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the April 7 final approval hearing in Oakland, California. Afterward, Wilken gave attorneys two weeks to amend the roster limit concept. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — agreed to an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. The settlement has been back in Wilken's hands since May 16. How will settlement money be distributed? As the settlement currently stands, $2.8 billion would be provided to college athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. These athletes had to file objections to or claims to be part of the settlement before Jan. 31. About 40,000 filed claims suggesting they would participate in the settlement, Front Office Sports reported in February. Advertisement The backpay is to be doled out over 10 years — 60% by the NCAA from its reserves and 40% from schools. In addition to damages, the House settlement would bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. How that money is divvied up will be left to individual institutions. Louisville athletics director Josh Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Kentucky athletics director Mitch Barnhart told the CJ at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. Front Office Sports reported that power conference schools are expected to dedicate 75% of the $20.5 million toward their football programs. Texas Tech's reported breakdown gives 74% to football, 17% to 18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.8% to baseball and the rest to other sports. That's $15.17 million for football, $3.69 million for men's basketball and $410,000 for women's basketball. How much are college athletes getting paid? College athletes would make money through revenue-sharing agreements with their schools and still be eligible for third-party NIL deals if the settlement is approved. However, the NIL market would be more heavily monitored than it is now under an enforcement structure that some industry leaders are skeptical of. Advertisement All NIL deals exceeding $600 will have to be reported to and pass through a clearinghouse called 'NIL go,' starting three days after the settlement is approved. NIL go will be operated by Deloitte with the purpose of assessing athletes' fair market value. Officials from the clearinghouse have been sharing data about past deals with athletics directors and coaches over the last several weeks, including 70% of agreements from collectives would not have passed through NIL go; 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 Those numbers are a far cry from the millions collectives have reportedly spent on athletes over the last four years or so. Restricting compensation in this way feels, to some, like a bit of a step backward. 'They're just encouraging people to cheat again,' Dan Furman, president of Louisville's official collective 502Circle, told The Courier Journal. Advertisement SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey spoke about the clearinghouse at spring meetings. When asked directly if he had confidence in these guardrails, Sankey said yes. "People are going to have opinions," he said. "Nothing ever worked when people sat around and said, 'Well, this won't work.' We're adults, we're leaders, and I think I communicated this (recently), we have a responsibility to make this work." Why roster limits are delaying Judge Claudia Wilken's decision? Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. This structure would cause thousands of athletes across the country to lose their spots — mainly in football and Olympic sports. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the final approval hearing in Oakland on April 7. Advertisement Wilken told attorneys they needed to fix this issue or else she would reject the settlement. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences came back with an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. Objectors then argued for mandatory grandfathering, but lawyers from the NCAA and power conferences maintained that their proposal should satisfy Wilken's demands and solicit approval. What does Kentucky's NIL bill say? Several states have laws permitting schools to directly pay college athletes — including Kentucky. The commonwealth passed Senate Bill 3 in March, amending its previous NIL legislation so state universities could legally operate within the House settlement's proposed revenue-sharing model. Advertisement Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reported in early May that athletics directors predict many schools will use state law to begin paying athletes, regardless of whether Wilken denies the settlement. One AD told Yahoo!: 'What can the NCAA do about it?' What will Louisville do if Judge Claudia Wilken rejects House v. NCAA settlement? If Wilken denies the settlement, U of L will likely move forward with paying its athletes directly, Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings. 'That's probably the path we would go down,' Heird said. 'Just from the standpoint of the more control you can have of the situation, the better. It's been a little bit disjointed with outside entities, collectives, doing things. So I would presume that's the road we would go down.' Advertisement Should the settlement get denied, U of L wouldn't be beholden to the $20.5 million cap. Instead, paying athletes would just 'be a budget constraint,' Heird said. 'But I'd contend it's a budget constraint now.' What is Kentucky's NIL budget? UK, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. UK totaled $129.2 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Barnhart told The Courier Journal at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages of the $20.5 million for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. What is Louisville's NIL budget? U of L, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. Louisville totaled $105.5 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Advertisement Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@ and follow her on X @petitus25. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: What is the House settlement? How U of L, UK would be impacted
Winnipeg Free Press
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
NCAA settlement plan for roster limits gets do-over to save players who lost spots on teams
Attorneys handling the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement proposed a massive do-over Wednesday when it comes to roster limits, offering athletes who lost their spots a chance to play without counting against the new caps for as long as they have eligibility. Under court order to come up with an updated plan, the attorneys in court filings suggested that schools compile lists of all the players they cut in anticipation of the settlement being approved — a number that certainly could be in the hundreds and perhaps far more. Those 'Designated Student-Athletes,' as they're called in the new legal filing, can be invited back to compete for roster spots — no guarantees — or go to new schools. FILE - A basketball with a March Madness logo rests on a rack before a First Four game between Illinois and Mississippi State in the NCAA women's basketball tournament, March 15, 2023, in South Bend, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Caterina, File) Either way, those athletes they won't count against the new roster limits that are coming under the plan unveiled last fall and given initial approval by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken last October. The proposal would also give the exemption to high school recruits who were promised spots that were later rescinded and would last for as long as those players are eligible in college. Wilken has already signed off on the key components of the settlement, which includes allowing each school to share up to $20.5 million each year directly with their athletes and the more than $2.7 billion in back pay that will go to players who said the NCAA and five biggest conferences wrongly kept them from earning name, image and likeness money. The latest proposal capped a two-week scramble after Wilken sent attorneys for both sides back to the negotiating table, saying the roster limit details of the plan as written were unacceptable. The plan calls for replacing scholarship limits (85 for football and 9.9 for men's wrestling, for example) with roster limits (105 for football, 30 for wrestling). A school can offer scholarships to every player on a team, but that will cost money and most predict that walk-ons or partial scholarship athletes will be left out. Wilken clearly sympathized with the hundreds of players who lost roster spots as schools began preparing to implement terms of the settlement. About a dozen told their stories during an April 7 hearing. Wilken asked lawyers to rework that part of the deal. The NCAA's first response to Wilken's request — which included the idea of 'grandfathering in' current players to their roster spots — was to change nothing, arguing that undoing roster moves already in play would create more turmoil in an already chaotic process. Wilken told them to do it anyway or put the whole plan at risk. The plaintiffs' attorneys said they did Wilken one better, not only giving schools a chance to bring back players they cut without it counting against their limit, but putting the exemption in play for a new school, as well. 'Plaintiffs believe that these changes to the settlement agreement exceed the protections that the court requested,' their court filing read. The attorneys noted there is no guarantee that the athletes will win their roster spots back. Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. Sign up for The Warm-Up 'While defendants insisted that the changes to the settlement agreement recognize that individual schools and their athletics departments retain discretion to independently determine which athletes will be on their rosters, that has always been the case; and it remains unchanged whether or not there are roster limits,' they wrote. 'The revisions to the settlement agreement ensure that class members who have or would have lost roster spots or promised roster spots as a result of the new roster limits will be in the same position as they would have been in if roster limits were never implemented, i.e., roster limits do not apply to them.' The judge is expected to give opponents to the plan a brief window to file updated objections before her final decision. Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, predicted earlier this week that those objecting to the plan will not be satisfied with the new proposal. The clock is ticking for the NCAA and its 1,200 member schools that have more than 500,000 athletes on various teams. Terms of the settlement were supposed to go into effect July 1 and football practice starts soon after. ___ AP college sports:
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
NCAA settlement plan for roster limits gets do-over to save players who lost spots on teams
FILE - A basketball with a March Madness logo rests on a rack before a First Four game between Illinois and Mississippi State in the NCAA women's basketball tournament, March 15, 2023, in South Bend, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Caterina, File) FILE - A basketball with a March Madness logo rests on a rack before a First Four game between Illinois and Mississippi State in the NCAA women's basketball tournament, March 15, 2023, in South Bend, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Caterina, File) FILE - A basketball with a March Madness logo rests on a rack before a First Four game between Illinois and Mississippi State in the NCAA women's basketball tournament, March 15, 2023, in South Bend, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Caterina, File) Attorneys handling the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement proposed a massive do-over Wednesday when it comes to roster limits, offering athletes who lost their spots a chance to play without counting against the new caps for as long as they have eligibility. Under court order to come up with an updated plan, the attorneys in court filings suggested that schools compile lists of all the players they cut in anticipation of the settlement being approved — a number that certainly could be in the hundreds and perhaps far more. Advertisement Those 'Designated Student-Athletes,' as they're called in the new legal filing, can be invited back to compete for roster spots — no guarantees — or go to new schools. Either way, those athletes they won't count against the new roster limits that are coming under the plan unveiled last fall and given initial approval by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken last October. The proposal would also give the exemption to high school recruits who were promised spots that were later rescinded and would last for as long as those players are eligible in college. Wilken has already signed off on the key components of the settlement, which includes allowing each school to share up to $20.5 million each year directly with their athletes and the more than $2.7 billion in back pay that will go to players who said the NCAA and five biggest conferences wrongly kept them from earning name, image and likeness money. Advertisement The latest proposal capped a two-week scramble after Wilken sent attorneys for both sides back to the negotiating table, saying the roster limit details of the plan as written were unacceptable. The plan calls for replacing scholarship limits (85 for football and 9.9 for men's wrestling, for example) with roster limits (105 for football, 30 for wrestling). A school can offer scholarships to every player on a team, but that will cost money and most predict that walk-ons or partial scholarship athletes will be left out. Wilken clearly sympathized with the hundreds of players who lost roster spots as schools began preparing to implement terms of the settlement. About a dozen told their stories during an April 7 hearing. Wilken asked lawyers to rework that part of the deal. The NCAA's first response to Wilken's request — which included the idea of 'grandfathering in' current players to their roster spots — was to change nothing, arguing that undoing roster moves already in play would create more turmoil in an already chaotic process. Wilken told them to do it anyway or put the whole plan at risk. Advertisement The plaintiffs' attorneys said they did Wilken one better, not only giving schools a chance to bring back players they cut without it counting against their limit, but putting the exemption in play for a new school, as well. 'Plaintiffs believe that these changes to the settlement agreement exceed the protections that the court requested,' their court filing read. The attorneys noted there is no guarantee that the athletes will win their roster spots back. 'While defendants insisted that the changes to the settlement agreement recognize that individual schools and their athletics departments retain discretion to independently determine which athletes will be on their rosters, that has always been the case; and it remains unchanged whether or not there are roster limits," they wrote. "The revisions to the settlement agreement ensure that class members who have or would have lost roster spots or promised roster spots as a result of the new roster limits will be in the same position as they would have been in if roster limits were never implemented, i.e., roster limits do not apply to them.' Advertisement The judge is expected to give opponents to the plan a brief window to file updated objections before her final decision. Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, predicted earlier this week that those objecting to the plan will not be satisfied with the new proposal. The clock is ticking for the NCAA and its 1,200 member schools that have more than 500,000 athletes on various teams. Terms of the settlement were supposed to go into effect July 1 and football practice starts soon after. ___ AP college sports:
USA Today
08-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
NCAA files revised revenue-sharing settlement addressing judge's objection on roster limits
NCAA files revised revenue-sharing settlement addressing judge's objection on roster limits Show Caption Hide Caption How coaches salaries and the NIL bill affects college football Dan Wolken breaks down the annual college football coaches compensation package to discuss salaries and how the NIL bill affects them. Sports Pulse Lawyers for the NCAA and for the athletes involved in the proposed settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and Power Five conferences made filings with a federal judge on Wednesday, May 7 that they said address the one concern she had said was preventing her from granting final approval to the deal. The issue involves around roster limits that had been set to go into effect immediately as part of the agreement. On April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said that the immediate implementation of roster limits made the proposed settlement 'not fair' because thousands of athletes who are supposed to be benefiting from the deal stood to lose their places on teams after the current school year. Wilken gave the sides two weeks to address her concerns, and in a new filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote that they and the NCAA have agreed to arrangement under which: 'any athlete who would have lost their roster spot (or a promised roster spot) for the 2025-2026 academic year due to the immediate implementation of roster limits will be exempt from any roster limits at any Division I institution, for the duration of their college athletics careers.' However, Laura Reathaford, a lawyer for one objector, told USA TODAY Sports she will be filing a separate brief – an indication that objectors will be continuing to try to make their case with Wilken. In her order two weeks ago, Wilken asked that Reathaford and two other lawyers for objectors be included in discussions about revisions to the roster limits that also were included a mediator and lawyers for the plaintiffs, the NCAA and the Power Five conferences that also are defendants in the case.
