NCAA, leagues sign off on nearly $3 billion plan to set stage for dramatic change across college sports

In a pivotal move, the NCAA has joined forces with the primary collegiate athletic conferences to allocate an astonishing near $2.8 billion settlement, paving the way for an innovative approach to revenue distribution that could see college athletes receiving significant financial benefits from as early as Fall 2025.

The decisive vote by the Pac-12 conference marked the culmination of approvals needed for this agreement, a decision made known by a source with intimate knowledge of the matter.

The Southeastern Conference’s leadership had earlier expressed unanimous consent for the arrangement, divulged by another individual familiar with that verdict, who spoke under assurance of anonymity.

Earlier in the week, members of the Big Ten, Big 12, and Atlantic Coast Conference had given their approval, all preceding a deadline established by the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

Releasing a collective statement Thursday evening, NCAA President Charlie Baker, alongside the commissioners of the five leading conferences, heralded the settlement as a vital leap forward in the evolution of collegiate sports. The statement underscored the benefits for student-athletes and the clarity the agreement will bring for years ahead.

“This collaborative effort from Division I membership has laid the groundwork for today’s achievements, yet there is still considerable work ahead to actualize the settlement’s terms within the ongoing legal framework,” read the statement. “We eagerly anticipate coordinating with our student-athlete advisory groups as we embark on this new chapter for collegiate athletics.”

While the settlement still awaits validation by the presiding federal judge and may encounter legal challenges, its endorsement signifies the dawn of a transformative period in college sports. This era is marked by athletes receiving compensation akin to their professional counterparts, and educational institutes using financial incentives to attract talent.

The proposed plan underlines the end of a longstanding NCAA policy advocating for amateurism since its inception in 1906. Factors like punishment for athletes receiving benefits from supportive parties have substantially diminished, especially with the lifted restrictions on endorsement deals made possible by name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements three years prior.

Imagining a college sports landscape where elite athletes, including star quarterbacks and top basketball recruits, benefit from substantial NIL agreements on top of a $100,000 bank transfer from their schools is no longer just a possibility but a forthcoming reality.

While several specifics are still under negotiation, the arrangement obliges the NCAA and the conferences to distribute $2.77 billion over the coming decade to over 14,000 past and present collegiate athletes who claim that former restrictions impeded their ability to profit from endorsements and sponsorships since 2016.

Contributions for this massive settlement will be sourced from NCAA reserves and insurance. However, the legal action directly named five conferences composed of 69 institutions—which includes Notre Dame—and thus many other NCAA-affiliated schools are anticipated to receive diminished sums from the NCAA to assist in covering the substantial compensation.

An estimate projects that institutions within the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences will shoulder the majority of the settlement costs, approximating to nearly $300 million each over a span of ten years, with future athlete payments representing a significant portion of these expenses.

The settlement incorporates the Pac-12 conference as well, spreading accountability across all members, despite Washington State and Oregon State soon to become the sole league members following the exit of the remaining ten schools by this upcoming fall.

Within this new financial framework, individual educational institutions will have the latitude—though not the obligation—to earmark up to $21 million yearly for athlete compensation, a cap that could potentially increase with rising revenues.

The arrangement extends eligibility for financial rewards to athletes across all sports, granting schools the discretion to allocate the funds among various athletic programs, abandoning current scholarship limits and shifting towards cap-based rosters.

The applicability of Title IX regulations regarding gender equity to this new compensation structure remains uncertain, as does the possibility of integrating NIL activities within schools. These factors could spawn additional legal disputes.

The class-action lawsuit at the center of this monumental agreement, House v. the NCAA, was initially set for trial in January. The suit, led by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Sedona Prince, a basketball player formerly with Oregon and now at TCU, accused the NCAA and top-earning conferences of unlawfully restricting their ability to collect endorsement income.

The complaint also argued players had a rightful claim to the revenue generated from media rights deals with tv networks. Facing mounting pressures and the threat of substantial damages that some speculated could amount to $20 billion, NCAA officials and conference leaders concurred on a fundamental adjustment to their traditional model: permitting direct payment to athletes beyond scholarships.

This principle had already experienced numerous challenges over the past decade, most notably the Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict against the NCAA in 2021 regarding educational-related benefits, which, though narrowly focused, helped to establish precedence for potential litigation; Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s pointed assessment emphasized the collective revenue generation by student-athletes.

Expected to address two additional antitrust cases challenging athlete compensation rules—Hubbard vs. the NCAA and Carter vs. the NCAA—the settlement is currently under judicial review in California’s Northern District. A potential snag emerges with the fourth case, Fontenot vs. NCAA, which perseveres as a standalone case in Colorado following the refusal of consolidation with Carter, thus creating uncertainty about its inclusion in the settlement and the implications of potential additional legal risks.

Lawyer George Zelcs, representing the plaintiffs in Fontenot, indicated their intent to persist with litigation within Colorado while awaiting formalized settlement terms to be presented in court.

The agreed-upon resolution is revolutionary yet somewhat anticipated. Collegiate sports have been progressing towards this juncture for some time, recognizing long-overdue rights and benefits for athletes.

Baker, with a 14-month tenure as NCAA President, previously proposed establishing a Division I athletics tier requiring well-resourced schools to provide at least $30,000 annually to a minimum of half their athletes. Alongside other proposals, this remains subject to discussion.

Despite the strides made, numerous issues still confront college sports, including the question of athletes’ employment status—a position opposed by Baker and others in the collegiate sports hierarchy.

Notwithstanding legislative intentions, specific federal laws or antitrust exemptions may be necessary to officially record the settlement’s terms, insulate the NCAA against imminent suits, and override conflicting state regulations. Heads remain turned towards Capitol Hill for legislative progress, but as of now, promising bills have seen minimal advancement.

In conclusion, while several questions linger, one thing is unequivocal: college athletics is on the cusp of an evolutionary shift towards a model that more closely mirrors professional sports.

Leave a Comment