NCAA president committed to challenges ahead as pending antitrust settlement paves way for player compensation

LAS VEGAS — When Charlie Baker was named president of the NCAA in December 2022, the message directed at him for membership was clear.

“Just do it something,” Baker said Monday during remarks at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics annual meeting.

Baker did more than that, taking a victory lap of sorts in front of approximately 3,000 attendees in a packed ballroom at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center. During what amounted to a 40-minute state of the union address, Baker attempted to calm the membership after the House v. agreement Last month’s NCAA.

“Now we have the opportunity to sign a framework and put things behind us,” Baker said in his first in-person comments since the historic deal.

The case resolved a series of potentially crippling antitrust cases and set the NCAA on a path where it is poised to pay players for performance. As it stands, the NCAA and member schools are on the hook for $2.8 billion in back damages. In the future, power conference schools will be required to set aside an average of $22 million annually over the next 10 years to share with athletes.

“I certainly know it will be a challenge to meet the terms of this agreement,” Baker explained. “I will say that the NCAA is committed to doing everything we can in the national office to find savings, generate revenue and apply that to the financial impact on schools in the coming years.

“As you know, this case has taken a lot of time, resources and concerns from everyone, not just Division I. If the proposed settlement is accepted, it will bind the NCAA and all DI schools for the next 10 years.”

Huge obstacles remain ahead in the next decade. While the settlement reduces antitrust liability in these cases specifically, it does not prevent other classes of athletes from suing over other issues. NACDA convention administrators were concerned about how Title IX will be enforced, with lineup limits likely to be part of the deal. Money would have to be reallocated to fund these increased limits, which could potentially create gender inequality.

“There will always be things open,” Baker said. “If you told me what I heard from members literally from the moment I walked in the door, it would be, ‘How are you going to handle these employment-related antitrust cases?’”

Despite the agreement, the NCAA stopped short of agreeing to collectively bargain with athletes, possibly leading to an employee-employer relationship. The NCAA is still seeking an antitrust exemption from Congress to enforce its rules and/or allow collective bargaining without players being declared employees.

If that happens, it probably won’t happen until next year, as the Congressional session is coming to an end.

Baker wouldn’t go so far as to predict that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who is overseeing the settlement, will approve it 100% as written. However, the agreement is expected to move forward quickly, possibly being preliminarily finalized in early July. Any benefits for current athletes would likely not arrive until the fall of 2025.

Wilkin has overseen some of the NCAA’s biggest antitrust cases over the past decade.

“The one thing I know is that probably no one has been more identified with these issues than she has been in the last 10 years,” Baker said. “She is clearly [the best] person on the bench to look at this. This experience, this story makes me think she will take whatever she achieves seriously, but I wouldn’t dream of predicting how she would get there.”