Attorneys negotiating a major settlement that could reshape the business model of college sports have submitted new language to their settlement after the judge in the case ordered the association and the players in the case to go "back to the drawing board."
The preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement was rejected by judge Claudia Wilken earlier this month. Wilken said she had concerns over key terms of the deal. Wilken said she was primarily concerned that the deal would require boosters only provide money to athletes for a "valid business purpose."
Attorneys negotiating a major settlement that could reshape the business model of college sports have submitted new language to their settlement after the judge in the case ordered the association and the players in the case to go "back to the drawing board."
The preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement was rejected by judge Claudia Wilken earlier this month. Wilken said she had concerns over key terms of the deal. Wilken said she was primarily concerned that the deal would require boosters only provide money to athletes for a "valid business purpose."Â
According to Sportico, attorneys reported back to Wilken by proposing changes to their original agreement in hopes they can persuade Wilken that the settlement will not prohibit any deals that are currently allowed and that the NCAA’s regulatory authority to enforce pay-for-play rules is not expanded in any way by the settlement.Â
Sportico reported that the changes include the elimination of the word "booster" from the settlement and clarification that NCAA enforcement of pay-for-play rules regarding NIL will be limited to review of deals with people and entities who are closely affiliated with schools — but not established brands like Nike and Reebok. The revisions also exempt NIL deals with individuals when their families provide less than $50,000 to a school.
The judge had also said that attorneys need to "make it clear that not everyone is going to be paid $1 million."Â
Wilken will not have to rule on the matter, either by approving it or permitting other interested parties to file objections and hold hearings to evaluate the arguments.Â
In a statement, the NCAA said the amended settlement proposal “addresses questions” that were “raised by the judge during the preliminary hearing.” The association also says the revisions will “limit future enforcement authority over third-party NIL deals” and enlarge “opportunities for student-athletes to profit from their NIL and provide both clarity and transparency to those seeking to offer or accept NIL deals.”
