Settlement in the House v NCAA Lawsuit
No idea how this will impact things. If it is a good thing, or a bad thing. But one thing is for sure.
Lawyers got paid.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The players got paid! Finally, somebody out here paying reparations.
Revenue sharing was also a big win, especially for the ACC and Big12.
And by allowing direct payment from schools for P4 only, it widens the gap between P4 and G5. Another win for the ACC and B12.
It's wild how fast things have moved on the NIL and transfer portal front. As much as I'm in favor of players getting paid, I understand why fans have whiplash and are upset.
Without any meaningful control, it's the wild wild west.
This has been in motion for over 4 years of lobbying efforts by the NCAA. It looks great on paper immediately, but if ratified it will hurt the future earnings potential for student athletes.
Interesting thing about a revenue sharing model is that if it's tied to minutes played it could be an incentive model with a positive impact on the sport, perhaps even compensating for some of the revenue disparities across the leagues/schools. Theoretically players will be incentivized to go where they have the best shot at playing time, not where they will best be able to maximize their initial NFL contract.
I thought about this for bowl games too, but the revenue isn't big enough if you're a 1st round pick. It's probably still better to go to UGA. Also then kids won't want to red shirt, they'll leave and rosters will be a mess.
That's an interesting take, and probably right if every school/conference decides to distribute the revenue that way. It's probably an individual school or conference decision, though, unless there are statements in the settlement about *how* the revenue is to be distributed.
It's definitely something to think about. HS players (and I guess transfers) have a lot to consider when selecting a school. Minutes is probably a lot harder to project and virtually every player has greater belief in themselves than an objective reality.
But with the inevitable increase of bona fide agents for players, there will be a more objective mouth to help that guidance as well.
Much like everything else about college sports, what looks to be a good thing for the masses up front quickly will devolve into being an advantage for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
P2 schools can now take their TV revenues and funnel it right into paying for players. And if you think this is good for VT, you haven't been paying attention.
Yes. Just like NIL was supposed to level the playing field for the middle-bottom revenue teams, it just gave the P2 ways to further separate. Not to mention the NCAA and schools didn't have to pay a cent of NIL. This will certainly hurt the non-P2 schools. We will have to see what that means.
It's not so much NIL... it's NIL + Unregulated transfer portal that is causing the issue.
I still believe that NIL on it's own would be an equalizing force within the sport. Unregulated Transfers (without NIL) would hold asshole coaches accountable.
The two of them, both unregulated, at the same time, has caused chaos.
Also, on top of all that, you have COVID eligibility stuff.
There are going to be massive lawsuits over the settlement pay options. One model had 60% of the payment coming from the G5 and lower schools. One projection showed significant reductions to their payouts.
A totally different take: A player is getting paid big money early in his college career but gets hurt by a questionable dirty play. He faces loss of income. Can he sue the other player? Can the ref be sued for not calling the penalty? Can the other coach be sued for not controlling his player?
I see a really messy time ahead.
The short answer is no, at least as current precedent is set. This has already been litigated and it's established that if you choose to be in an arena with known risks, you take on those risks, including the potential loss of future earnings. Dirty plays that are against the rules of the sport are considered legally allowable within the "arena of football" as there is a certain level of expectation that penalizable or dirty play will happen.
If there was something completely egregious, then there might be something. Like the use of a weapon or something that would be completely out of the "arena of football." But, if the play was that egregious, then the liability will likely only be against the player, and limiting damages that one could get.
Now add in negligence and the practical threat of intentional negligence lawsuit.
so yea, the concussion issue with the NFL is an example of negligence, but that was a class action about systematic coverup of concussion-related issues over a long period of time. Not a single incident.
Ok, let me give a for instance and so, by design this is absurd.
A player is hurt on a play eventually deemed as targeting. The injury is to a star player and is career ending.
The defending team penalized for the targeting has so far been penalized over 10 times that season for targeting.
Looks like a pattern. This pattern could arguably be described as an instruction problem. This then opens the argument that it is due to negligent coaching.
Assume this school has done what ASU just did and dissolved any firewalls between the school and athletics and the school in question has a large endowment.
Let's say a crafty lawyer works out the cost of defending against a vigorous civil lawsuit and sets the suit public number well above that number but privately offers to settle for an amount a rational amount below that number.
Yes, a bit absurd, but we can negotiate later on what is absurd and what is not later.
Under current precedent this would likely be dismissed early on. Like at the motion to dismiss stage early. Which never happens.
You would need to allege a lot more than a pattern of targeting and negligent coaching. Even accepted as true, as is the case with a motion to dismiss, not enough.
Forum shop and I'm sure someone will eventually find one that hates football.
Such is the nature of the modern judiciary.
True story. Especially in state court
Yea, I would say good luck. I don't say never. But, it' would probably be pretty hard to establish that a coaching staff or Ath. Dept. was negligent in this scenario. First, the plaintiff would need to establish, what's the duty of care? And is that a recognized duty of care in the industry? And what are the procedures taken (or not taken) to meet that duty of care? And then the plaintiff would have to establish that the defendant had a duty to take those procedures and did not meet the the standard of care.
You also mentioned an intentional tort. (Side note: in legal parlance, negligence is defined to be unintentional.) The intentional tort here would be battery (and potentially assault), which is what the legal precedence is based upon. It would be hard to establish a battery due to the arena.
Right, stay away from intentional. That would be a hard brick to pull out of the structure. Go with unintentional all the way.
Something like this.
Establish duty of care using the rules as industry standard and emphasize the rules described as "for safety" to include targeting.
Normal understanding of risk. Continued and excessive violation of the rule of targeting is not intentional but a display of ineffective training in adherence to industry standards. Whether it be the instruction itself or the manner in which the training occurs, it is ineffective. Not taking effective changes to correct ineffective training is negligent.
The ineffective training which does not prevent the players from violating industry standards therefore negates any acceptance of risk by opposing players. Opposing players expect players to adhere to industry standards and to be effectively trained in adhering to industry standards.
but remember refs only have jurisdiction once they have arrived, so if you punch a bunch of people prior to the refs showing up there is zero repercussions
Like the Kentucky bowl game a couple of years ago?
Thanks
I know a lot of details are yet to be worked out, but the interesting part to me was this statement, Per ESPN, sources said the parties have agreed to a revenue-sharing plan that will allow each school to share up to "roughly $20 million per year with its athletes." I'm interested to know how this gets divided amongst the athletes of different sports. Will all schools have the option to share the full $20 mil or will it be based on the types of sports and the number athletes they have?
Does this money shared have to be in conformance with Title IX is my big question. I can see the WBB driving Mercedes shortly.
Title IX is about discrimination in educational activities. That why the scholarship number is equalized.
I don't think it will really applies here, but people are extra cautious. It doesn't really make sense to use money made by football to pay a track athlete (male or female) for their NIL. That seems pretty tangential.
LOL- none of that shit will matter anymore. None of it. In 5 years or less football players will be Johnny Manziel (never a student at aTm) in the open. Some on here are fine with that too.
Not that this wasn't an issue already, given inflated coaching salaries etc., but how annoyed is the general student population going to be now that their is another $20M line item to cover, and they are responsible for a (sometimes large) chunk of the budget regardless of if they partake in watching sports at school or not.
I get that it's revenue sharing, but a fair amount of the athletic departments are supported by student fees and not profitable on revenue alone. They were yesterday and they will be the future, but seems like you need to get the general student population out of directly supporting the athletic department, when is getting more and more clear that the affiliation is in name only.
Not to mention VT's football enhancement fund coming from the general school budget/endowment.
As far as how this impacts things, our sports law practice group put out an insight that I thought did a pretty nice job. It's not complete legalese.
Link here for those interested in seeing how all these cases fit together: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/ncaa-settlement-might-tr...
Good piece by Pat Forde explaining how we got here. Some highlights
There's a whole sections on "SEC expansion and innovation" (which didn't even mention of the actual innovative things that the SEC did), the ACCs repeated raids of the Big East, and the rise of conference networks.
Followed by a brief summary of 3 major cases that took down the NCAA.
The settlement got kicked back to the lawyers by the judge and DCWilson about to have a field day....
Her primary reason for sending it back was that it limited ways boosters could provide money to players, specifically that it had to be for "valid business purposes"
It's also become a popularity contest over what might or might not be legal:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41141275/house-v-ncaa-set...
Never understood how the NCAA was going to enforce this anyways.
You said it... Virginia Tech's mission is to have a good football team with strong fans, right? It's not academics anymore I think you said? Well there is your business case. VT is in the business of football- not a major academic university. Go Hokies.
First of all - My past comments on the value prop of university degree are irrelevant to the NCAA's ability (or lack thereof) to enforce third party compensation to athletes.
Secondly, that's a gross misrepresentation of my comments. I'll share the comments from the Doomberg newsletter, which articulated this far better than I am capable of:
College are selling an academic experience, a social experience, a professional network, and a recognizable brand.
Nah, you pretty much said VT wasn't about academics when I pressed you on it directly.
I haven't read it. Did she comment on that in the United States, if you can throw a football, you are simply entitled to money? Everything else- competitive balance, some semblance of being a student, a voluntary agreement stating such, a world class education that has no value- doesn't fucking matter. These kids are entitled to large sums of cash because they can throw a ball. That's it. Period. All else is semantics and bullshit, and we will get there anyway. There will be zero rules- and soon. Entitled to big money. Plain and simple.
And. LMFAO ...at " which prohibit boosters paying athletes for performance or for using NIL payments as an inducement to recruit an athlete. " are we still pretending this is not happening and is against the rules? we are so fucking stupid.
I really hate what this sport is turning into. Managed to lose interest in almost all sports over the years. Fuente came close to killing my interest in VT football. Maybe I can finally finish things off and just focus on Iditarod and international volleyball?
If you haven't watched it- check out "receiver" on Netflix.. That is what VT football will be very soon. Players calling Pry "bruh".. players surprised when other players talk to them. 100% about the brand, not the team, trainers openly saying "we need you back out there" to injured players. Etc. The NFL is a different ballgame. Its a business. Head Coaches are simply play callers and business partners to the players. They have no authority. It's eye opening.