When a high-profile college athlete puts fans in the seats and drives up sports revenue at their universities, does it primarily benefit them or their schools? A Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month in Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association examined that question and could put an end to the idea of […]
Read More
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled the National Collegiate Athletic Association couldn’t prohibit athletes on teams at member schools from receiving certain education-related compensation. In affirming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in NCAA, et al. v. Alston, et al., college athletes were given the green light to get paid for their names, images and likenesses. By June 30, the NCAA had released an interim NIL policy, providing general guidelines as to how universities and athletes could approach NIL business ventures while also complying with existing NCAA bylaws prohibiting “pay-for-play” arrangements.
Read More
As March Madness was wrapping up in Indianapolis, United States Supreme Court justices heard oral argument in a monumental compensation case that sports law experts anticipate will forever change the landscape of college athletics — including the nation’s most beloved and profitable college basketball competition.
Read MoreNCAA President Charlie Baker is banking on the momentum college sports appears to be gaining since preliminary approval of the House settlement, which calls for schools to pay players directly for use of their name, image and likeness.
The athletes whose lawsuit against the Indianapolis-based NCAA is primed to pave the way for schools to pay them directly also want a players’ association to represent them in the complex contract negotiations that have overtaken the sport.
A judge granted preliminary approval Monday to the $2.78 billion legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools to pay players.
The new language and replacing of the hazily defined “booster,” which has played a big role in the Indianapolis-based NCAA’s rulebook for decades, is designed to better outline which sort of deals will come under scrutiny under the new rules.
A federal judge on Thursday probed the terms of a proposed $2.78 billion settlement of antitrust lawsuits against the Indianapolis-based NCAA and major conferences and revealed a potential snag in the deal, questioning whether payments to college athletes from booster-funded organizations should be restricted.
The NCAA and the five power conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference, also known as the “Power 5 Conferences”) have been steadily working to resolve a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA related to revenue sharing with student athletes and name, image and likeness (NIL) rules.
College sports leaders believe they have found a way through a massive antitrust settlement to finally separate “true NIL” for athletes from what they say is booster-funded pay-for-play.
Thousands of former college athletes will be eligible for payments ranging from a few dollars to more than a million under the $2.78 billion antitrust settlement agreed to by the NCAA and five power conferences.
An attorney for the defendants tells The Associated Press the full settlement agreement of antitrust lawsuits involving the NCAA and college sports’ wealthiest conferences is expected to be filed with a federal court by Friday.
College athletes whose efforts primarily benefit their schools might qualify as employees deserving of pay under federal wage-and-hour laws, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday in a setback to the NCAA.
The NCAA Division I council voted to remove use of cannabis products from the banned drug class for championships and postseason participation in football.
Scholarships are not going away in college athletics, but how many there are and which sports they will apply to in coming years are among the many questions stemming from a mammoth antitrust settlement and athlete revenue-sharing plan proposed by the Indianapolis-based NCAA and its five largest conferences.
The nearly $2.8 billion settlement that has been approved by the Indianapolis-based NCAA and the nation’s five largest conferences is a historic step toward a more professional model for college sports. The plan, which still needs approval from plaintiffs and a federal judge, calls for paying damages to thousands of former and current college athletes who say now-defunct NCAA rules prevented them from earning endorsement money.
The class-action lawsuit seeks back pay for college athletes who were denied name, image and likeness compensation dating to 2016.
A deadline looms next week for the NCAA and major conferences to agree to a deal that could cost billions in damages and set up a groundbreaking revenue-sharing system with college athletes.
NCAA athletes are now eligible to play immediately no matter how many times they transfer—as long as they meet academic requirements—after the Indianapolis-based. association fast-tracked legislation to fall in line with a recent court order.
Schools facing NCAA infractions cases could ensure they avoid postseason bans if they show “exemplary cooperation” with investigators under a proposal before the NCAA Division I Council.
NCAA President Charlie Baker on Wednesday urged lawmakers in states with legal wagering on sporting events to ban betting on individual player performances.
A judge on Tuesday kept in place for now the NCAA’s rules prohibiting name, image and likeness compensation from being used as a recruiting inducement, denying a request for a temporary restraining order by the states of Tennessee and Virginia.
The attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as part of their federal lawsuit arguing the NCAA’s NIL rules violate antitrust law.