Student Union
Payments to college athletes to range from a few dollars to more than $1M under settlement
Thousands of former college athletes in the U.S. 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, a deal that also paves the way for schools to directly compensate athletes while attempting regulate payments from boosters.
Details of the sprawling plan were filed Friday in federal court in the Northern District of California, a little more than two months after the framework of an agreement was announced. The deal must still be approved by a judge.
"College athletes will finally be able to share in the billions of dollars their compelling stories and dynamic performances have generated for their schools, conferences, and the NCAA," the filing said. "This is nothing short of a seismic change to college sports following more than four years of hard-fought victories in this case."
The full term sheet includes guidelines on roster caps for individual sports that will replace scholarship limits; how the new financial payments will be monitored and enforced to ensure compliance by schools; how third-party payments to athletes will be regulated; and how nearly $3 billion in damages will be doled out over the next 10 years.
Those payouts will vary drastically and are determined by sport played, when, how long and what conference an athlete competed in. While Division I athletes across all sports will be eligible to collect damages, the majority of damages is expected to go to football and basketball players from power conferences because those leagues and teams generate most of the revenue that comes from billion-dollar media rights contracts.
The deal covers three antitrust cases — including the class-action lawsuit known as House vs. the NCAA — that challenged NCAA compensation rules dating to 2016. The plaintiffs claimed NCAA rules denied thousands of athletes the opportunity to earn millions of dollars off the use of their names, images and likenesses.
The NCAA lifted its ban on athletes earning money through endorsement and sponsorship deals in 2021.
The agreement does not settle the issue of whether college athletes should be deemed employees, but it does include language that would suggest the deal would be subject to change if "a change in law or circumstances permits collective bargaining."
The NCAA and college sports leaders continue to plead for help from Congress in the form of a federal law that would supersede state laws and allow the association and conferences to self govern without fear of future antitrust litigation.
"This settlement is an important step forward for student-athletes and college sports, but it does not address every challenge," the commissioners of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, Southeastern Conference and NCAA President Charlie Baker said in a joint statement. "The need for federal legislation to provide solutions remains. If Congress does not act, the progress reached through the settlement could be significantly mitigated by state laws and continued litigation."
While that help still seems unlikely to come soon — especially with a presidential election months away — college sports leaders hope the settlement can provide some certainty for schools and finally stem the constant legal attacks on its antiquated model of amateurism.
Paying athletes
The NCAA and conferences have agreed to amend their rules to permit a landmark compensation system that allows schools to share up to about $21 million in athletic revenues with their athletes annually, starting in 2025.
The NCAA and conferences will be permitted to make rules that prevent schools from circumventing the cap.
That number is derived from taking 22% of the average revenue generated through media rights contracts, tickets and other sources by power conference schools. The agreement will create an audit system that allows plaintiffs to monitor athletic revenue, which is expected to rise in the coming years as new media rights agreements kick in for conferences and the College Football Playoff.
Athletes are projected to receive $1.5 billion to $2 billion annually.
All athletes will be eligible to receive the new financial benefits, but each school will be permitted to determine how they want to divvy up the money among sports. How exactly Title IX gender equity rules apply is still unclear and will require federal clarification. How schools comply with Title IX will be the responsibility of each institution.
Scholarships and rosters
Replacing scholarship limits with roster caps could mean even more athletic scholarship opportunities in Division I.
Most notably, major college football teams will now be permitted to have 105 player on scholarship instead of the current 85, though schools will no longer be required to give full scholarships to every football player.
Partial scholarships have been used in some sports for years, but will now be permitted in all.
The roster caps for baseball (34), softball (25) and volleyball (18) will also allow for a significant jump in the number of scholarships schools can provide in those sports, though schools will not be required to meet the cap.
NIL deals and oversight
NCAA rules have been tweaked to allow schools to be more involved in providing NIL opportunities for college athletes, but they will still be allowed to strike deals with third parties.
However, athletes will be required to report deals with third parties that surpass $600 to an outside clearinghouse.
The NCAA is also creating a public database that it hopes will allow athletes to assess fair market value.
Booster-funded NIL collectives have become a common way athletes are compensated, but now those deals will be subject to review through an arbitration process to determine if it is for a "valid business purpose," according to the agreement.
Violations could lead to eligibility penalties for athletes and sanctions for schools.
Damage payments
The plaintiffs in the House case are responsible for doling out damages. Included in Friday's filing was a chart breaking down the categories of eligible athletes along with four different types of payouts they could be in line to receive.
According to the plaintiffs, about 19,000 power conference football players and men's basketball players will be in line to receive an average of $91,000, with payments ranging from $15,000 to $280,000 just for what is referred to broadcast name, image and likeness.
Some of those same athletes could also be in line for tens of thousands of dollars more related to lost opportunities to earn NIL money while in college and what is deemed by the plaintiffs as pay-for-play. Plaintiffs' lawyers say a few athletes will be eligible to receive upward of $1 million.
Next steps
Plaintiffs' attorneys say they will file a motion for preliminary approval and — if granted — a public website will go up in about two months where former college athletes can determine how much they are eligible to receive.
Still, the settlement is months away from final approval. There will be an opportunity for athletes who are members of the plaintiffs' class to object to the settlement and ask to be excluded. Already one school, Houston Christian, has objected — though the judge denied its request to intervene.
"We are moving forward in the right direction by giving college athletes what they have EARNED & DESERVE which has been long overdue," said Sedona Prince, a college basketball player now at TCU and one of the plaintiffs in the House case. "We still have a long way to go and I pray athletes ask more questions and demand more answers from the leaders at their schools, conferences and the NCAA."
See all News Updates of the Day
Overall college enrollment is up, first-year enrollment down
For the second year since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, college enrollment has climbed in the United States.
But the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center noticed a substantial drop in the number of freshmen, which could be troubling for future enrollment, according to a report in Forbes. (October 2024)
South African universities embrace AI, seeing it as equalizing tool
The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT has sparked debate in higher education, raising questions about ethics and integrity in teaching, learning and knowledge creation. In South Africa, some academic institutions are taking a proactive approach, integrating AI into their curricula. Experts say this step is not only innovative but also helps level the playing field among students. Zaheer Cassim reports from Johannesburg.
International students may be able to get jobs at school
International students studying in the United States may be able to work on campus.
Jobs can include working in libraries, labs, food service and dormitories – but students will have to research the rules before applying for jobs, according to U.S. News & World Report. (September 2024)
Report says college rankings have the potential to mislead
Each year, prominent lists of college and university rankings are compiled and released to the public, but a report conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago says those rankings have the potential to mislead.
Writing in Forbes, Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier says changing methodologies can distort results, and profit motives can create doubt. He argues that rankings should be replaced by an objective rating system. (September 2024)
College athletes push for voter turnout while largely avoiding controversy as election nears
Lily Meskers faced an unexpected choice in the lead-up to the first major election she can vote in.
The 19-year-old University of Montana sprinter was among college athletes in the state who received an inquiry from Montana Together asking if she was interested in a name, image and likeness deal to support Sen. Jon Tester, a three-term Democrat seeking re-election. The group, which is not affiliated with the Tester campaign, offered from $400 to $2,400 to athletes willing to produce video endorsements.
Meskers, who is from Colorado but registered to vote in Montana, decided against the deal because she disagrees with Tester's votes on legislation involving transgender athletes in sports.
"I was like, OK, I believe that this is a political move to try to gain back some voters that he might have lost," Meskers said. "And me being a female student-athlete myself, I was not going to give my endorsement to someone who I felt didn't have the same support for me."
Professional athletes such as LeBron James, Colin Kaepernick and Stephen Curry have taken high-profile stances on hot-button topics and political campaigns in recent years, but college athletes are far less outspoken — even if money is available, according to experts in the NIL field. Being outwardly political can reflect on their school or endanger potential endorsement deals from brands that don't want controversy. It can certainly establish a public image for an athlete — for better or for worse — or lead to tensions with teammates and coaches who might not feel the same way.
There are examples of political activism by college athletes: A Texas Tech kicker revealed his support for former President Donald Trump on a shirt under his uniform at a game last week and a handful of Nebraska athletes a few days ago teamed up in a campaign ad against an abortion measure on the Tuesday's ballot.
Still, such steps are considered rare.
"It can be viewed as risky and there may be people telling them just don't even take that chance because they haven't made it yet," said Lauren Walsh, who started a sports branding agency 15 years ago. She said there is often too much to lose for themselves, their handlers and in some cases, their families.
"And these individuals still have to figure out what they're going to do with the rest of their lives, even those that do end up getting drafted," she added.
College coaches are not always as reticent. Auburn men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl has used social media to make it clear he does not support Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent in next week's presidential election. Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy once caused a stir with a star player for wearing a shirt promoting a far-right news outlet.
Blake Lawrence, co-founder of the NIL platform Opendorse, noted that this is the first presidential election in the NIL era, which began in July 2021. He said athletes are flocking to opportunities to help increase voter turnout in the 18-to-24 age demographic, adding that one of his company's partners has had 86 athletes post social media messages encouraging turnout through the first half of the week.
He said athletes are shying away from endorsing specific candidates or causes that are considered partisan.
"Student-athletes are, for the most part, still developing their confidence in endorsing any type of product or service," he said. "So if they are hesitant to put their weight behind supporting a local restaurant or an e-commerce product, then they are certainly going to be hesitant to use their social channels in a political way."
Giving athletes a voice
Many college athletes have opted to focus on drumming up turnout in a non-partisan manner or simply using their platforms to take stands that are not directly political in nature. Some of those efforts can be found in battleground states.
A progressive group called NextGen America said it had signed players in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia to encourage voting among young people. Another organization, The Team, said it prepped 27 college athletes in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Michigan to lead volunteer voter participation opportunities for students. The organization also said it got more than 625 coaches to sign a nonpartisan pledge to get their athletes registered to vote.
The Team's executive director is Joe Kennedy, a former coach who coordinated championship visits and other sporting events at the White House during President Barack Obama's administration. In early October, it hosted a Zoom event during which panelists such as NCAA President Charlie Baker and WNBA players Nneka Ogwumike and Natasha Cloud gave college athletes advice about using their platforms on campus.
In its early days, The Team seized upon momentum from the record turnout seen in the 2020 election. The NCAA that year said Division I athletes could have Election Day off from practice and play to vote. Lisa Kay Solomon, founder of the All Vote No Play campaign, said even if the athletes don't immediately take stands on controversial issues, it's important for them to learn how.
"It is a lot to ask our young people to feel capable and confident on skills they've never had a chance to practice," Solomon said. "We have to model what it means to practice taking risks, practice standing up for yourself, practice pausing to think about what are the values that you care about — not what social media is feeding into your brain, but what do you care about and how do you express that? And how do you do it in a way that honors the kind of future that you want to be a part of?"
Shut up and play?
Two years ago, Tennessee-Martin quarterback Dresser Winn said he would support a candidate in a local district attorney general race in what experts said was very likely the first political NIL deal by a college athlete.
There have been very few since.
The public criticism and fallout for athletes who speak out on politics or social issue can be sharp. Kaepernick, the Super Bowl-winning quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, hasn't played in an NFL game since January 2017, not long after he began kneeling during the national anthem at games.
Meskers, the Montana sprinter, said political endorsements through NIL deals could create problems for athletes and their schools.
"I just think that NIL is going to run into a lot of trouble and a lot of struggles if they continue to let athletes do political endorsements," she said. "I just think it's messy. But I stand by NIL as a whole. I think it's really hard as a student athlete to create a financial income and support yourself."
Walsh said it's easier for wealthy and veteran stars like James and Ogwumike to take stands. James, the Los Angeles Lakers star, started More Than a Vote — an organization with a mission to "educate, energize and protect Black voters" — in 2020. He has passed the leadership to Ogwumike, who just finished her 13th year in the WNBA and also is the president of the Women's National Basketball Players Association. More than a Vote is focused on women's rights and reproductive freedom this year.
"They have very established brands," Walsh said. "They know who they are and they know what their political stance is. They know that they have a really strong following that -- there's always going to be haters, but they're also always going to have that strong following of people who listen to everything that they have to say."
Andra Gillespie, an associate professor at Emory University who teaches African American politics, also said it is rare that a college athlete would make a significant impact with a political stand simply because they tend to have a more regional platform than national. Even celebrities like Taylor Swift and Eminem are better at increasing turnout than championing candidates.
"They are certainly very beneficial in helping to drive up turnout among their fans," Gillespie said. "The data is less conclusive about whether or not they're persuasive – are they the ones who are going to persuade you to vote for a particular candidate?"
Athletes as influencers
Still, campaigns know young voters are critical this election cycle, and athletes offer an effective and familiar voice to reach them.
Political and social topics are not often broached, but this week six Nebraska athletes — five softball players and a volleyball player — appeared in an ad paid for by the group Protect Women and Children involving two initiatives about abortion laws on Tuesday's ballot.
The female athletes backed Initiative 434, which would amend the state constitution to prohibit abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions. Star softball player Jordy Bahl said on social media that the athletes were not paid.
A University of Montana spokesperson said two athletes initially agreed to take part in the NIL deal backing Tester. The school said one withdrew and the other declined to be interviewed.
For Meskers, deciding against the offer boiled down to Tester twice voting against proposals to bar federal funds from going to schools that allow transgender athletes to play women's sports, a prominent GOP campaign topic. Tester's campaign said the proposals were amendments to government spending packages, and he didn't want to play a role in derailing them as government shutdowns loomed.
"As a former public school teacher and school board member, Jon Tester believes these decisions should be made at the local level," a Tester spokesperson said. "He has never voted to allow men to compete against women."
Meskers said she believes using influence as college athletes is good and she is in favor of NIL. She just doesn't think the two should mix specifically for supporting candidates.
"I think especially as student athletes, we do have such a big voice and we do have a platform to use," she said. "So I think if you're encouraging people to do their civic duties and get up and go (vote), I think that's a great thing."
