Back to reality?
Something tells me this ends up in court... for years.
Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/college-football-powerhouse-projected-to-spend-up-to-40-million-on-roster-in-2025/ar-AA1DWe3h?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=13c5bf63010a474c9889460c492aea73&ei=35
Replies to: Back to reality?
Why do you think it ends up in court?
I think after the school pays the 20 million, the boosters under the cloak of NIL can pay whatever they want as long as they have the players pose for some posters
You underestimate the creativity (and avarice) of our legal professionals.
Although it might seem on the surface like this settlement sets up some protection and stability for the NCAA going forward, this agreement only settles three cases: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Just yesterday, the judge in the Fontenot v. NCAA case declined to consolidate it with House, and there are multiple other cases across the college athletics landscape that pose future issues.
Athletes will also have the option to opt out of the settlement agreement in House, meaning they will preserve their legal right to appeal the settlement or bring a future case.
There’s also the potential for there to be athletes who aren’t covered under this settlement because they didn’t play between June 15, 2016 and November 3, 2023 and potentially won’t be playing once future revenue sharing goes into effect. For example, if you have a freshman in Fall 2024 who only plays one year, and revenue sharing doesn’t go into effect until Fall 2025, they’re in a gap that isn’t covered.
This settlement may also create grounds for new antitrust cases in the future because the solution here creates a cap, which represents a restraint on pay. Restrictions like that are potential antitrust violations if not collectively bargained, which can’t happen unless athletes are deemed employees.
Let the games begin.