Exhaustion, but also relief, was clear in the voice of a longtime college athletic administrator late last week. This powerful man is neither a hard-liner nor a revolutionary. But when granted anonymity to discuss negotiations surrounding a high-profile lawsuit, they had this to say about a possible settlement in Home vs. NCAA: “I hope we are finally on the verge of a new model for college athletics.”
That pretty much sums up the feelings of many college athletes these days.
A change in mood within the industry will occur this spring. After so much time complaining and fighting about changes to Name, Image and Likeness Freedoms and the Transfer Portal, it seems… the focus is on appears …that college leaders have reached a new stage: accepting their new normal and seeking real, realistic solutions.
Evidence of this is the movement toward settlement in the House case, in which the plaintiffs seek damages for former athletes for lost income in the years before NIL reform, as well as changes to the system to benefit athletes current and future. The two sides are discussing details of a deal, first reported by ESPN and confirmed by Athleticismwhich would cost the NCAA and its schools billions of dollars and establish a new framework by which athletes could directly receive a share of their schools’ revenue.
Free daily sports updates straight to your inbox. Register
Free daily sports updates straight to your inbox. Register
Buy
That cut could total about $20 million a year for all of a school’s athletes — football, basketball, non-revenue sports, men’s and women’s teams — according to people briefed on the discussions. Schools would participate in revenue sharing on a voluntary basis, so some could choose to pay less than the proposed maximum, half or nothing.
This does not resolve issues (assuming they are issues) with the transfer portal, NIL and Pay-for-Play. But in administrators’ eyes, it’s a key step because revenue sharing would have a domino effect on NIL and perhaps the portal: Schools paying athletes directly can ease donor fatigue. There might be ways to use revenue sharing to convince players not to transfer. And the very willingness to turn to revenue sharing could be a step toward real government help.
So far, some quarters have seen the NCAA attempt to turn back the clock on athletes’ rights. Now, as one administrator said, the organization could go to Congress and say: Look what we’ve done here, we’ve righted some of these wrongs. Now can you work with us?
Just to be clear: the House rules are not a done deal. Further details may emerge if and when the issue is resolved. Jeffrey Kessler, the plaintiffs’ attorney, has not commented publicly since buzz about an impending settlement intensified, nor have university leaders, none of whom have been willing to speak on the record about the matter. history. But conversations with industry players shed light on how things got to this point and what still needs to be done.
For many, it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a settlement in the House case. There was too much risk going to court with Kessler, who knows how to beat the NCAA. It was by losing lawsuits that the NCAA lost control in the first place, and ultimately, the power brokers decided to be more pragmatic.
NCAA President Charlie Baker is seen as a positive force in these moves, and coaches and staff worry that one specific change Baker advocates could be coming soon: the ability for schools to consolidate their NIL affiliates internally, paying directly. players for their exclusive rights. This change would allow schools to supplement what athletes receive through revenue sharing, by paying them a certain amount to appear on the cover of a season ticket, for example.
When Baker was hired two years ago, the former Massachusetts governor was seen as a glorified lobbyist to Congress, and it seemed like a crazy task. In fact, no bill is even close to becoming a reality. But Baker brought a new voice to the organization, presenting proposals for reform and pushing longtime college administrators to accept that the good old days won’t return.
Commissioners from power conferences have been willing to engage, and not just with the two most powerful, according to multiple sources within the industry: The Big Ten and SEC may be the two richest conferences , but they were not the only driving force towards a settlement. . College presidents were generally the most reluctant, but over the past year, as one official put it, “an evolution in thinking” has occurred.
The general chaos was a driving factor, but recent events have led to a turning point:
• The transfer portal, which has gotten wilder than ever this college football offseason, with key players jumping around and eye-popping reports about the money involved in those decisions.
• A West Virginia court injunction that threw out the NCAA’s rule limiting athletes to a one-time free transfer, allowing players to leave after any year and sit out no season.
• The NCAA’s investigation into Tennessee football regarding the recruiting of quarterback Nico Iamaleava, which was thwarted by the Tennessee attorney general’s successful attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the NCAA from enforcing its own recruitment rules.
This latest blow to the status quo notably contributed to mobilizing a lot of people, according to another official.
Again, let’s be clear, not everyone is there yet. House’s case could still go to court in December. Negotiations could still break down on details. Concerns remain about issues that a settlement might not fully resolve, from how a new system would fit into Title IX to whether capping revenue sharing leaves it open to antitrust challenges.
But the momentum is now in favor of a settlement. As one manager said, some want to solve everything at once, while others feel that managers should do what they can and go from there. And that’s where things appear to be heading in the coming weeks.
Whether that involves taking the drastic step of calling athletes employees, a step that may be necessary to regain control of transfers and other rules, remains a big debate. But the ground has moved enough for many to talk about employment, or at least a collective agreement, in a more than hushed tone.
A proposal presented this week by Jason Stahl of the eponymous College Football Players Association envisioned athletes participating in collective bargaining as non-employees without their financial rights being limited. If the House case is settled, creating this new financial model, college decision-makers can take the next step.
“We want this proposal to reignite the debate about how college athletes can bargain collectively in the future,” Stahl said.
Stahl is wary of going too far in the new structure, such as getting rid of collectives or anything that would appear to limit athletes’ financial rights. But he is open to dialogue.
“We are ready to work on a sustainable model for college athletics,” Stahl said. “We are ready to tame the chaos.”
Almost exactly three years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling against the NCAA in the Alston case. Ten days later, the NIL market opened to athletes from across the country. Three years later, the NCAA and college powerbrokers are tired of losing in court and tired of the impact of those losses. Those on the other side – lawyers, union organizers, reform critics – seem largely ready to commit to solutions.
Is everything done? No, but things are moving, timidly, in this direction.
(Photo: Adam Cairns / Columbus Dispatch / USA Today)