Ronnie Ervin’s Post

The impending House v. NCAA settlement could transform the landscape of college sports with the introduction of a revenue-sharing model. However, the exclusion of athletes from negotiations still remains a critical issue. Legal experts and talent representation argue that without athlete involvement in bargaining compensation and benefits, the NCAA risks ongoing litigation. It's evident that true sustainability depends mainly on collaboration between universities, conferences, and student-athletes. Collegiate leaders have a unique opportunity to adopt a more inclusive framework, enabling athletes to actively shape their future. Read more at the link! #NIL #LinkedInSports

College sports leaders are in talks to settle the ongoing NIL / antitrust lawsuit, House v. NCAA. The House case was originally filed in the Northern District of California by former collegiate swimmer Grant House. Plaintiffs argue that the NCAA restricted athletes’ ability to profit from their NIL, alleging a violation of antitrust laws. A settlement could include revenue sharing with athletes and legal protection for the #NCAA. The NCAA is opposed to athletes being classified as employees. According to the article, schools will have the discretion to opt in to revenue sharing up to a certain amount with their student athletes. The exact mechanics of how this will work are still uncertain. Schools could choose to share less, but not more, than the designated amount. #NIL #collegesports #sportslaw #NCAA #collegeathletes Source: https://lnkd.in/eYQP4GyD

Here's what jumps out at me from this article - "In an effort to ensure NIL payments are actually about the commercial use of athlete’s right of publicity for endorsement, sponsorship, influencing or other promotion—and not pay-for-play or recruiting inducements—the settlement would obligate athletes and their schools to share with a clearinghouse information about NIL deals that exceed $600. Athletes will have the ability to seek advisory opinions about a prospective NIL deal and challenge adverse determinations that their deals are NIL in name only. This review process will involve assessment of fair market value, a controversial metric given that FMV is often difficult to assess. The specifics of this system will require further deliberation and rulemaking." I can promise you right now that most of the big NIL deals that exist are not based on FMV of the publicity rights being licensed. I think this will have the biggest impact on boosters. It reminds me of the Stark law in the healthcare field. That statute has FMV requirements to prevent kickbacks. The amount of time and money expended in complying with Stark could pay off the national debt. I would expect lawsuits about this portion of the settlement agreement (if it is approved). I would also expect a lot of administrative actions at the clearinghouse.

Several states are challenging an NCAA rule that unjustifiably restrains the ability of college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I college athletes. Clark Hill Law provides the details. #sportslaw #ncaa #collegeathletics

This article brings up interesting points about NIL and college athletes, which is a fast-changing area.

Thompson Coburn partners Rob Lang and Scott Goldschmidt wrote for Sports Litigation Alert on the case of NCAA athlete Terrence Shannon Jr., their client who successfully challenged his university's suspension from the basketball team. The article explores the impact of name, image, and likeness (#NIL) opportunities on these scenarios and offers guidance for institutions with athletic programs. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3Adj5tc #sportslaw #collegeathletics

As has been discussed, there are two ways for the NCAA and conferences to make the framework being discussed for the House settlement (which includes a cap on #NIL payments from schools to athletes) comply with antitrust law. An antitrust exemption or collective bargaining with athletes. A new federal bill has been introduced that is seeking to provide the former. The Protect the Benefits And Limit Liability Act (Protect the BALL Act) introduced by two Republican representatives provides the NCAA with extremely broad liability protection. It provides immunity from ANY federal or state law (not just antitrust law) for limiting/prohibiting compensation to college athletes from ANY person or entity. This means not only could the NCAA cap the amount of NIL payments that schools/conferences can provide to athletes without legal liability (as being discussed in the House settlement), it could also completely prohibit payments to athletes from collectives and other third parties. That’s a big change from how things currently work. The bill also provides the NCAA immunity from federal/state law for any rules that restrict the eligibility of athletes. So rules limiting transfers, for example. Or any other eligibility rule the NCAA has recently been sued over. This bill has little to no chance of passing this year. But it’s an example of how the NCAA and others would like to continue governing college athletics without involving the athletes in the decision making. #ncaa #nameimagelikeness #collegeathletes #collegeathletics #sportslaw #LinkedInSports

In the wake of a preliminary injunction being entered by a Tennessee federal court that prohibits the NCAA from enforcing its “NIL-recruiting” rules for third parties, the NCAA announced yesterday that it will not be investigating collectives and other boosters for #NIL-related violations of NCAA rules while the injunction is in place. The NCAA has also paused all pending NIL-related investigations. This means that collectives and other boosters can offer, discuss, and negotiate NIL deals with high school and transfer athletes as part of the recruiting process, without fear of NCAA rules violations for themselves, schools, and the athletes. Despite this, there are still some NCAA NIL rules in place (at least for now). 1. Schools cannot directly provide NIL compensation to their athletes. 2. All NIL deals must still include a quid pro quo (the athlete must be performing some service). 3. NIL deals can’t be based on athletic performance. In addition, collectives are still not supposed to communicate and offer deals to current college athletes at other schools that are not in the transfer portal. There are pending lawsuits that would eliminate rules 1 and 3 above (House v NCAA, Carter v NCAA, and Fontenot v NCAA), so those rules might also soon be enjoined/eliminated. At some point, the NCAA/college athletics will have to move to a model where at least some athletes are directly compensated by schools for their athletic performance. Most likely as employees of the schools. Some schools are already taking steps to prepare for this world. Others should do the same. #nameimagelikeness #ncaa #collegeathletics #collegeathletes #sportslaw #antitrustlaw #employmentlaw #laborlaw https://lnkd.in/gwNPVW4T

A new federal antitrust lawsuit could effectively end NCAA restrictions that prevent name, image and likeness from being used for recruitment. Tennessee & Virginia v. NCAA is going to be a case to watch as the NCAA faces another major legal challenge. We have the details and analysis on Sportico. #sportslaw #sportsbusiness #NCAA #NIL #antitrustlaw

If you have an athlete connect with Post Law on the new NIL guidance!