Anthony Wilson
In 2011, 300 college football and basketball players from Arizona, Kentucky, Purdue and UCLA petitioned the NCAA demanding a cut in television revenue. They were told that such a move is not “fiscally possible.” What followed was an initial effort toward the cost of attendance, which involved increasing scholarships by $2,000.
This all seems ridiculous by today’s standards.
These days, players – along with their representatives, boosters and agents – are dictating the terms. There are unionization efforts at Dartmouth and a de facto players association at UAB. The current structure still fails to collectively understand an employee-employer relationship in college athletics governed by collective bargaining. It’s coming, though. Is required.
A large-scale revenue sharing model is in the development phase, which essentially reveals the end of all this. With players and representatives now dictating terms, this appears to be the only way to comply with the current resolution.
But while revenue sharing represents a necessary forward thinking in the current climate, it only puts a thumb in the dam.
The intention at this point is to turn off the tap on antitrust processes. There are some that could be particularly impactful, but House v. NCAA is the most prominent currently with a trial date set for January 2025. It must be treated first.
But this seems like just a stopgap measure. Revenue sharing may influence agreements in other cases, but this is not guaranteed. Most importantly, this doesn’t stop anyone, anywhere on the players’ side, from filing another lawsuit.
Overall, there is only one way for all this to end: collectively negotiate with a players association. This protects the NCAA and schools from further litigation because the parties agree on working conditions, health and welfare, salary, etc.
Although it is a seemingly uncomfortable arrangement, the two sides would be partners.
Michael McCann from Sportico recently wrote that any “revenue sharing plan not supported by a collective bargaining agreement would be at risk for antitrust law, as it would set a limit on how much athletes can receive.”
There are few absolutes in this type of situation. One is to establish players as employees and schools as employers. We already live in a world where athletes earn millions in unlimited income. Athletic directors may be unhappy, but the game has never been healthier, with record TV ratings and rising attendance.
And for concerns about the lack of parity, Liberty would have earned a spot in the College Football Playoff if the expanded field had been in place last season.
Revenue sharing is an improvement, but it is not a solution. The flexible deadline is the beginning of the Home trial in nine months. If it loses, the NCAA will be responsible for $4.2 billion in damages. The agreement would not be closure, but it would something.
There is still a long way to go. The two sides could agree on courtroom steps shortly before trial. Even if the NCAA is subject to a massive appeals process, it would only further delay the inevitable. Such an agreement would legally protect defendants for the next 8 to 10 years, but this is absurd without collective bargaining.
“Even if you get all the plaintiffs and all the lawyers together in the settlements, that doesn’t stop a case that hasn’t been filed yet from being filed in the future,” a veteran attorney familiar with NCAA legal issues told CBS Sports. .
No, unless there are two distinct sides negotiating with each other. The NFL negotiated a “personal conduct” clause in its collective bargaining agreement with players for “conduct that is detrimental to public confidence” in the NFL. This is more difficult than in the college space, where coaches – with an obvious conflict of interest – can discipline players on their own. Or not, which is sometimes scarier.
There are more conjectures than conclusions, with all sides pursuing their own interests. At the annual bowl meetings in El Paso, Texas, a proposal was made to set aside a portion of the conference’s bowl revenue and pay it to players as an incentive/attendance fee to prevent forfeits.
It doesn’t matter that conferences probably won’t agree to a reduction in their revenue, but any such agreement suggests an employment contract. We’re not there yet.
“It’s getting a little silly,” said sports lawyer Mit Winter. “If you get direct payments from schools, everyone knows they’re getting paid to play their sport, even if they call it NIL. It’s just an employment contract.”
Professional athletes are not required to play postseason games. Why would you want an employer with influence over if you are actually injured? The is a legal term called “specific performance“clause.
“You can’t force anyone to play,” Winter said.
The only solution seems to be the professional model. But is the system ready for such an agreement? It doesn’t matter. Something has to be done, or there will continue to be a hamster wheel of lawsuits.
“It’s resolving lawsuits and trying to save time with other processes,” Winter said. “This ushers in revenue sharing, but it doesn’t resolve the other legal issues.”
Here is a further breakdown of our position on what has been labeled the “Modern Model.”
Revenue sharing alone does not end NIL and collectives. Players would still be eligible for compensation, but any attempt to limit that revenue would be met with another antitrust lawsuit. Think about players getting maybe $30,000 a year in revenue sharing but having side gigs with NIL benefits. The collectives would still have their tentacles in the process.
The NCAA would be responsible for $2.7 billion more than 10 years at the end of the agreement, according to ESPN. Unless the NCAA has insurance for such a scam, members should expect a reduction in the annual NCAA Tournament payout – which funds everything for the association.
This NCAA deal is separate from what the Power Four would set aside for revenue sharing. What would it be like they pay for it? That’s easy, or at least understandable. We talked about this in March. Under the deal, Power Four schools will be on the hook for an average of $15 million to $20 million each. This is just to resolve Home and, hopefully, influence settlements in other landmark cases. As paying for the scam is less important than what it gets: some kind of cost and job security.
With some kind of rudimentary collective bargaining, schools could “negotiate” this compensation for, say, two years of players’ residency. This would begin to solve the enormous problem of unrestricted movement of players through the transfer portal. This only happens if there is a players association to negotiate with.
Some current influencers who would serve as a figurehead representing the players:
- Jim Cavale: The founder of Athletes.org made headlines last week when he signed up for the entire UAB team. A nonprofit that empowers players, Athletes.org could someday become a players’ association or union for college athletes.
- Ramogi Huma: Head of the National College Players Association advocacy group, the former UCLA player has been an effective activist for players’ rights.
- Jason Stahl: Founder of the College Football Players Association, Stahl embarked on a Path to Organizing Penn State Football which finally failed two years ago.
- Jason Belzer: The founder and CEO of NIL Student Athletewhich is another candidate to serve as a players association.
“You’re going to need someone who can organize the athletes,” Belzer told CBS Sports. “Either the athletes organize themselves…or someone organizes enough of them or hires them and starts setting rules and making demands.”
But how do you organize a group whose members change significantly every year? College athletes are “passages.” In other words, they are transient and temporary.
Some level of revenue sharing is already in place. Belzer estimates that 95% of NIL is paid to play under a different name. The state of Missouri basically created this structure allowing schools to directly help with NIL deals.
The aim of such an agreement is that it would be “global”, meaning that multiple processes could be grouped together for settlement. Between them:
- House v. NCAA: The most urgent and significant in relation to the existing collegiate model. This seeks retroactive pay for athletes with NIL benefits, as well as shares of broadcast and video game revenue.
- Fontenot v. It claims, based on broadcast rights alone, that colleges can certainly pay players. Example: Texas A&M had enough money to pay for Jimbo Fisher’s $76 million buyout.
- Hubbard v. This seeks late payment for the Alston vs. NCAA verdict. This landmark 2021 ruling saw the Supreme Court vote 9-0 to allow limited educational benefits that the NCAA had fought for.
- Carter v. NCAA: Like Hubbard, he argues that athletes should receive more than the NCAA basics – room, board, tuition, books and attendance costs. This case was opened in December 2023 and could take years to process without resolution.
Still, would grouping these cases turn off the tap?
It remains unclear whether all of this would be subject to Title IX, the 52-year-old federal law that prevents discrimination based on gender in education in schools receiving federal assistance. This article concludes that Title IX requirements would not take effect if schools shared market money with basketball and football players.
To be determined: Which players exactly would split the revenue. Does it only apply to football and men’s basketball?
In this new era, look for expanded scholarship numbers and allocating money for scholarships. Think about so-called “equivalence” sports like baseball, football and volleyball. These sports share the scholarships. Example: Baseball shares 11.7 scholarships among its roster.
In the new climate, schools could fully fund these sports. The concept would be “permissive”, meaning optional, but in essence there would be another separator between the haves and the have-nots. It would also count as part of the revenue sharing agreement.
There is yet I hope Congress intervenes grant at least limited immunity to the NCAA to conduct some type of business and adhere to its rules. Speaking to sources, don’t expect anything along those lines until at least next year. It’s an election year in which Congress’s attention is occupied with the obvious: getting re-elected.
Consider what might happen if a new administration takes power. In general, Democrats are pro-worker, while Republicans are exactly the opposite. However, a conservative Supreme Court ruled Alston decisiona significant, pro-work movement that has led us to the current climate. Alston opened the door for NIL.
“For God’s sake, we are [still] going to government?” asked Joe Moglia, former CEO of TD Ameritrade who went on to coach Coastal Carolina. “There’s no private company in the world that would say, ‘We’re going to go to government for a bailout.'”
