Connect with us

Published

on

The trajectory of major college sports is set to bend this week to give athletes a significantly larger portion of the billions of dollars they help generate for their schools.

The industry’s top leaders will gather in the next few days to vote on the proposed terms of a landmark settlement. The deal would create a new framework for schools to share millions of dollars with their athletes in the future and create a fund of more than $2.7 billion to pay former athletes for past damages.

The settlement would also mark the end of at least three major federal antitrust lawsuits looming as existential threats to the NCAA and its schools, and would resolve the most pressing — and arguably most formidable — legal challenges facing the college sports industry. The deal would not, however, solve all of the NCAA’s problems or even provide clear answers to many crucial questions about how a more professionalized version of major college sports might look in the near future.

Here are some of the details and unsolved questions shaping conversations during what could be a monumental week in the history of college sports.

Terms of the settlement

While several important details are not yet finalized, sources have confirmed the following general structure of an agreement to settle the House v. NCAA case:

The NCAA’s national office would foot the bill for a $2.7 billion payment for past damages over the course of the next 10 years. The NCAA would generate the majority of that money partly by cutting back on the funds that it distributes to Division I schools on an annual basis.

The power conferences would agree to a forward-looking revenue sharing structure that would give schools the ability to spend a maximum of roughly $20 million per year on direct payments to athletes. The $20 million figure could grow larger every few years if school revenue grows. Each school would be left to decide how to allocate that money while remaining compliant with Title IX laws.

The plaintiffs, which could include all current Division I athletes, would give up their right to file future antitrust claims against the NCAA’s rules. This would include dropping two pending antitrust cases (Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA) that also have been filed by plaintiff attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler.

The sides would also agree to renew the class on an annual basis to include new athletes. New athletes — mostly incoming freshmen — would have to declare that they are opting out of the class in order to challenge the NCAA’s restrictions on payments in the future.

This rolling new class of athletes would, in effect, retire the most impactful tool that has been used over the past decade to chip away at the NCAA’s amateurism rules. Previously, Berman and Kessler needed only one athlete to lend his or her name to a case that would aim to remove illegal restrictions for all college athletes. Moving forward, a lawyer pushing to provide more benefits for athletes will first have to organize and gain commitments from a large group of players who opted out of the settlement.

Athletic and university administrators have long argued that their athletes are generally happy with what the schools provide and that the last decade’s lawsuits are the product of agitating lawyers and advocates. A settlement would not close the door on bargaining with athletes in the future, but it would make it less appealing for attorneys to test the legality of the NCAA’s rules without an explicit demand from a large swath of athletes.

While individual athletes could still opt out and sue the NCAA, the damages for a single athlete or small group of athletes would be far smaller. So, in practice, the House case settlement would provide schools with protection from future suits by removing the financial incentives that make these cases — which often takes years to fight — worthwhile for a plaintiffs’ attorney.

Class action cases have been an important tool to date for plaintiff attorneys because organizing college athletes — a busy and transient group of young people — is extremely difficult. (Although there are a number of groups actively attempting to form college players’ associations.) Some sports antitrust experts, such as Baruch College law professor Marc Edelman, say that, by making future class action lawsuits more difficult, this settlement would give schools ample license to collude on restricting payment to players. Edelman said this conflict could give a judge pause when deciding to approve the terms of the settlement.

Who’s in?

Attorneys representing the plaintiff class of all Division I athletes proposed terms to all defendants involved in the lawsuit in late April. To settle the case fully, the NCAA and each of the five power conferences will have to agree to the terms. Leaders from each group are expected to hold votes by Thursday.

The NCAA’s Board of Governors is scheduled to meet Wednesday.

The Big Ten presidents are planning to meet in person and vote this week as part of the league’s regularly scheduled meetings. That league has long been considered the major conference with the least amount of pushback on the vote. ACC presidents, SEC leaders and Big 12 leaders will also vote this week. In an odd twist, the Pac-12’s membership from this past season will gather virtually to vote, as the 10 departing programs will not vote in the conferences they plan to join next year. Since the Pac-12 was part of the suit as a 12-team league, the 12 presidents and chancellors of those schools will vote as a 12-school unit.

While the NCAA and conferences have to opt in, any athletes involved in the class will have an opportunity to opt out once the attorneys hammer out the details of settlement terms. Any athletes who opt out would retain the right to sue the NCAA in the future, but they would miss out on their cut of the $2.7 billion in damages. On the flip side, it’s unlikely that a current athlete who opts out would give up the opportunity to receive the forward-looking revenue share money, according to legal sources.

Next steps

If all parties agree to the broader terms of a settlement of the House case this week, their attorneys will get to work drafting the fine print of an agreement. That process can take weeks, according to attorneys with experience settling complex antitrust cases.

The judge overseeing the case, Judge Claudia Wilken of California’s Northern District, would then hold a preliminary hearing to review the terms of the settlement. If the judge approves, notice would be sent to all athletes providing them with a chance to formally object or opt out. And finally, the agreement would go back to the courthouse where Wilken would consider any arguments presented in objection before deciding whether the settlement meets her approval.

The Fontenot Case

Alex Fontenot is a former Colorado football player who sued the NCAA in late November for restricting athletes from sharing in television rights revenue. He filed his case a few weeks before Berman and Kessler (the two attorneys representing athletes in the current settlement negotiations) filed a similar complaint called Carter v. NCAA.

Both Kessler and the NCAA have argued that the two complaints are similar and should be consolidated into a single case, which would likely lead to the Fontenot case being part of the pending settlement talks. Fontenot’s attorneys do not want to consolidate and will present their argument for why the cases should be separate in a Colorado courtroom this Thursday.

Garrett Broshuis, Fontenot’s attorney, said he has concerns about how the House settlement could make it harder for future athletes to fight for more rights. Broshuis, a former pitcher at Missouri, has spent most of the last decade successfully suing Major League Baseball to help minor leaguers negotiate better working conditions.

The judge in the Fontenot case has not yet made a ruling on whether it should qualify as a class action lawsuit. If the House settlement is finalized, any college athlete would have to opt out of the settlement in order to take part in the Fontenot case. Opt-outs or objections raised during the House settlement hearings could give Judge Wilken additional pause in approving its terms.

Would Fontenot and other athletes who are working with his attorneys on this case opt out of the House settlement in hopes of pursuing a better deal in their own case?

“To the extent we can, we’re monitoring the media reports surrounding the proposed settlement,” Broshuis told ESPN this weekend. “Once the actual terms are available, we’ll closely scrutinize them. We do have concerns about what’s being reported so far, especially when it comes to the ability for future generations of athletes to continue to fight for their rights.”

Scholarship and roster limits

In the sprint to settle, there’s a bevy of details that are going to be left to college sports leaders to work out in coming months.

The inclusion of roster caps could impact college sports on the field. Right now, college sports operate with scholarship limits. For example, Division I football is limited to 85 scholarships, baseball to 11.7, and softball to 12. Meanwhile, Division I football rosters run to nearly 140 players on the high end, while baseball rosters top out around 40 players, and softball averages about 25 players.

Leaders in college sports are considering uniform roster caps instead of scholarship limits, which could be viewed as another collusive restraint on spending. This would give schools the choice to give out 20 baseball scholarships, for example, if they wished.

If rosters are capped at a certain number, the ripple effect could be more scholarships and smaller roster sizes. The viability of walk-ons, especially for rosters with dozens of them, could be at risk.

Sources caution that this won’t be determined for months, as formalizing roster caps are not part of the settlement. Sources have told ESPN that football coaches in particular will be vocal about radical changes, as walk-ons are part of the fabric of the sport. Stetson Bennett (Georgia), Baker Mayfield (Oklahoma) and Hunter Renfrow (Clemson) are all recent examples of transformative walk-ons.

The future of collectives

Multiple sources have told ESPN that some school leaders are hopeful the future revenue sharing model will eliminate or significantly decrease the role that NIL collectives play in the marketplace for athletes.

While an additional $20 million flowing directly from schools to athletes could theoretically satisfy the competitive market for talent and decrease the interest of major donors from contributing to collectives, experts say there is no clear legal mechanism that could be included in a settlement that would eliminate collectives. Those groups — which are independent from schools even if they often operate in a hand-in-glove fashion — could continue to use NIL opportunities to give their schools an edge in recruiting by adding money on top of the revenue share that an athlete might get from his or her school.

For the schools with the deepest pockets or most competitive donors, a $20 million estimated revenue share would be in reality more of a floor than a ceiling for athlete compensation. Most well-established collectives are planning to continue operating outside of their school’s control, according to Russell White, the president of TCA, a trade association of more than 30 different collectives associated with power conference schools.

“It just makes $20 million the new baseline,” White told ESPN. “Their hope is that this tamps down donor fatigue and boosters feel like they won’t have to contribute [to collectives]. But these groups like to win. There’s no chance this will turn off those competitive juices.”

How would the damages money be distributed?

Any athlete who played a Division I sport from 2016 through present day has a claim to some of the roughly $2.7 billion in settlement money. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive a significant portion of the money. The damages represent money athletes might have made through NIL deals if the NCAA’s rules had not restricted them in the past.

It’s not clear if the plaintiffs will disburse the money equally among the whole class or assign different values based on an athlete’s probable earning power during his or her career. Some class action settlements hire specialists to determine each class member’s relative value and how much of the overall payment they should receive. That could be a painfully detailed process in this case, which includes tens of thousands of athletes in the class.

The NCAA also plans to pay that money over the course of the next 10 years, according to sources. It’s not clear if every athlete in the class would get an annual check for the next decade or if each athlete would be paid in one lump sum with some of them waiting years longer than others to receive their cut.

Are there any roadblocks to settlement expected?

In short, the NCAA’s schools and conferences will likely move forward with the agreement this week despite unhappiness in how the NCAA will withhold the revenue from schools to pay the $2.7 billion over the next decade.

There is significant pushback among leagues outside the power leagues on the proposed payment structure. According to a memo the NCAA sent to all 32 Division I conferences this week, the NCAA will use more than $1 billion from reserves, catastrophic insurance, new revenue and budget cuts to help pay the damages, sources told ESPN this week. The memo also states that an additional $1.6 billion would come from reductions in NCAA distributions, 60 percent of which would come from the 27 Division I conferences outside of the so-called power five football leagues. The other 40 percent would come from cuts the power conferences, which are the named defendants with the NCAA in the case.

The basketball-centric Big East is slated to sacrifice between $5.4 million and $6.6 million annually over the next decade, and the similarly basketball-centric West Coast Conference between $3.5 million and $4.3 million annually, according to a source familiar with the memo. The smallest leagues would lose out on just under $2 million annually, which is nearly 20% of what they receive annually from the NCAA.

(The NCAA would withhold money from six funds across Division I leagues — the basketball performance fund via the NCAA tournament, grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.)

In an e-mail obtained by ESPN from Big East commissioner Val Ackerman to her athletic directors and presidents on Saturday morning, she said the Big East has “strong objections” to the damages framework. She wrote that she’s relayed those to NCAA president Charlie Baker.

The 22 conferences that don’t have FBS football — known as the CCA22 — have also been engaged in conversations about their disappointment with the damages proposal, according to sources.

Per a source, some members of the CCA22 are planning on sending a letter to the NCAA requesting the responsibility be flipped — the power conferences contributing to 60 percent of the damages and the other 27 leagues contributing 40 percent. In her message, Ackerman wrote she expects former FBS football players will be “the primary beneficiaries of the NIL ‘back pay’ amounts” — suggesting that the damages may not be shared equally among athletes.

Ackerman’s letter does mention the widely held belief in the industry that it may be tough for any significant change: “At this stage, it is unclear how much time or leverage we will have to alter the plan the NCAA and [power conferences] have orchestrated.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Wetzel: Never mind the girlfriend kerfuffle. Belichick will always be fine.

Published

on

By

Wetzel: Never mind the girlfriend kerfuffle. Belichick will always be fine.

It once seemed improbable that the most compelling figure of the college football offseason would be Bill Belichick’s 24-year-old girlfriend, but somehow, here we are.

Jordon Hudson’s spot in Belichick’s life has always been a public talking point. After all, they started dating two years ago, when Belichick was 71. Of late, though, she’s become an obsession.

Belichick is arguably the greatest coach in the history of the sport, winner of six Super Bowls leading the New England Patriots. His jump to the college ranks and the University of North Carolina is, for purely football reasons, of great intrigue.

Would this work? Could this work?

Currently though, the focus is on Hudson, who takes an active role in managing Belichick’s affairs, including running point on publicity for his new book, “The Art of Winning: Lessons from My Life in Football.”

That includes a viral clip from a “CBS Sunday Morning” interview when Hudson shut down a question about how the two met and was deemed a “constant presence.” That led to all sorts of attention on the relationship, not to mention Belichick’s acuity and Hudson’s recent real estate holdings. Former Patriots great Ted Johnson even told WEEI radio in Boston that “the Tar Heels should consider firing Bill Belichick.”

A few days into this modern controversy, where a social media clip redefines someone with decades in the public eye, can we all settle down for a moment?

As with any relationship, only Belichick and Hudson are privy to what is transpiring between them. But as sensationalistic as all the TikTok comments and website stories currently are, when it comes to actually coaching a football team, let’s settle back on one undeniable truth.

This is Bill Belichick.

Sure, the current attention can be fairly labeled as the kind of “distraction” that might personally crush and professionally derail most people. Belichick is not most people.

“Never been too worried about what everyone else thinks,” Belichick told CBS.

If you allow his history — a lesson from his life in football, if you will — to inform, then you would know that there has rarely, if ever, been any personal feud, situation, tabloid headline or bit of accusational strife that has derailed the man’s single-minded focus on winning.

Belichick doesn’t just thrive in the briar patch of controversy — he seems to prefer it. The more external noise, the better.

A former player standing trial for murder? Win the Super Bowl.

Accused of illegally videotaping opponents? Post a 16-0 season.

A star quarterback alleged to have cheated to win the AFC Championship Game by deflating footballs? Name-drop “My Cousin Vinny” in a news conference, then win the Super Bowl.

Have the team get fined and stripped of a first-round draft pick and the quarterback suspended for the start of the season? Win another Super Bowl.

Maybe this isn’t what he was expecting from the book release, but let’s be clear, he was expecting to create a major media stir.

Belichick is famously passive-aggressive. When he never once mentioned Patriots owner Robert Kraft in his memoir — not even in the acknowledgments — he did so expecting a commotion. This was likely to make it clear that Belichick believed the Patriots’ success during their 24 years together was more based on the coaches and players than the very front-facing owner who, depending whose version you believe, fired Belichick in January 2024.

This was throwing red meat to the sports media machine. It just turned out that the Hudson situation represented even more red meat to the far larger American pop culture/social media machine.

Belichick might not have seen this coming, but this is how he has always operated. He welcomes speculation and even being painted as the villain. Even his closest confidants, from Bill Parcells to Tom Brady, often wind up in prolonged, public ice-outs. There are the endless scraps with the media, the league office, officials or other coaches.

The public questioning his actions and motivation? Please.

Consider that back nearly two decades ago, the NFL made a deal with Reebok for its coaches to wear approved clothes. Belichick bristled at being told what to wear. In an act of fashion defiance, both Patriots and Belichick sources say, he took a plain gray sweatshirt and cut off the sleeves to make it ugly. (It inadvertently became a huge seller, labeled the “BB Hoodie” in the Patriots Pro Shop.)

Or when, in an effort to protest the NFL making teams categorize player injuries — doubtful, questionable, etc. — Belichick began listing Brady as “probable” on the report with a shoulder injury week after week for years despite there being no known injury. Brady would just laugh when asked about it.

Or when he thought the NFL was getting too commercialized, so he refused to have his name used by EA Sports in the Madden video game — “NE Coach” was all that was listed — even though he would make money for literally doing nothing.

Or maybe consider in 2000, when he reversed course on accepting the head coaching job with the New York Jets. Rather than get all apologetic, he handwrote a note that read: “I resign as HC of the NYJ.”

He loves this stuff. Like many highly competitive people, finding an enemy, or some doubt, or some negative opinion about him seemingly feeds him. It certainly doesn’t cause him to wilt.

The current kerfuffle isn’t much different from past ones. He’s been through divorce, and his dating life was even fodder for the New York tabloids. It didn’t matter. He just kept winning.

All of that makes it unlikely that Hudson is somehow bossing Belichick around — or that she would even want to. This is just BB.

Whatever happens with the couple — we wish them the best — is one thing, but anyone who thinks Belichick is somehow incapable of weathering some gossip or jokes, or won’t be laser-focused on coaching, teaching and preparing his players, hasn’t been paying attention.

Here’s guessing Belichick will be fine. He always has been.

Continue Reading

Sports

Clemson PF takes Dabo offer, joins football team

Published

on

By

Clemson PF takes Dabo offer, joins football team

For months, Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney had joked with Ian Schieffelin that the 6-foot-8 power forward for the Tigers‘ men’s basketball team would make an excellent tight end, but Schieffelin assumed it was all in good fun. Two weeks ago, however, he got a call from Swinney with a serious offer: spend the next six months with the Tigers football team and see what happens.

Schieffelin announced on Instagram on Friday that he is taking Swinney up on the offer, forgoing any pro basketball prospects for now in favor of one last season in a Clemson jersey — this time on the gridiron instead of the hardwood.

“I’ve been just training for basketball, getting ready for the next level,” Schieffelin told ESPN. “Dabo just walked me through the opportunity he was willing to give me, and it all sounded great, something I wanted to jump on. It really just sparked my interest in wanting to try, and being able to put on a Clemson jersey again was very enticing to me. To be able to be coached by Dabo and [tight ends coach Kyle] Richardson is just a huge opportunity I couldn’t pass up.”

Schieffelin blossomed into one of the key cogs for the Tigers’ hoops team the past two years. He averaged 12.4 points and 9.4 rebounds per game last season as Clemson earned a 5-seed in the NCAA tournament, losing to McNeese in the first round.

He had entered the transfer portal last month hoping for a fifth year of eligibility amid several ongoing lawsuits against the NCAA, though Schieffelin said the likelihood of an outcome in time for him to play basketball in 2025-26 was slim. He had been preparing for a crack at the pros — likely overseas or in the G League — when Swinney called with the offer.

“I’d never rule out me going back to basketball,” Schieffelin said. “I’ll see how these next six months go, see how development goes, see if I really like playing football. But I think this is a good opportunity for the next six months.”

Clemson lost starting tight end Jake Briningstool after last season. Briningstool, who signed as an undrafted free agent with the Kansas City Chiefs last week, played in 48 games and made 127 catches over four years at Clemson. The Tigers’ depth chart at the position is thin on experience, with Josh Sapp (13 catches), Olsen Patt-Henry (12 catches) and Banks Pope (1 catch) the only tight ends on the team to have recorded a reception.

In October, Swinney teased his interest in adding Schieffelin to his roster, suggesting he would fit in nearly anywhere on the field for the Tigers.

“He could play tight end, D-end. He could play whatever he wanted to play. He’d be an unbelievable left tackle,” Swinney said. “I’ll definitely have a spot. We have a lot of rev share ready too if he wants to pass up wherever he’s going [after basketball].”

Schieffelin said he hadn’t taken Swinney’s suggestions seriously during basketball season, assuming the coach was just teasing, but when the opportunity became real, he quickly understood the vision Swinney had for him.

“The call two weeks ago was very serious,” Schieffelin said, “and I thought, maybe it’s an opportunity to stay around a little longer and join a national championship contender.”

Schieffelin said he is not expecting to earn serious NIL money but does think his body type could allow him to blossom into a potential NFL prospect.

He played quarterback as a ninth grader before opting to focus on basketball the following year. Schieffelin said he will spend the next few months working on conditioning and strength gains to prepare for the rigors of football as well as working to build relationships with his new teammates, but he said he doesn’t have any set expectations for the season.

“Playing college basketball for four years, I’m used to the grind and used to work,” Schieffelin said. “But it looks different on the football side, so just getting in the weight room and learning everything.”

Before making his decision, Schieffelin said he spoke with Colts tight end Mo Alie-Cox, who was a four-year starter in basketball for VCU before signing with Indianapolis. Alie-Cox hadn’t played football since his freshman year of high school but is now entering his eighth NFL season.

“We talked about what went into his decision to go the football route,” Schieffelin said. “He helped me just knowing why he decided, and it made me decide to just give it a chance and see where I could take it.”

Alie-Cox is one of a handful of basketball players who have made a successful transition to football. Greg Paulus played hoops at Duke before becoming the starting quarterback at Syracuse in 2009. Jimmy Graham and Julius Peppers played both sports in college before becoming All-Pro NFL players. Antonio Gates played basketball at Kent State before giving football a try. He was announced as a Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee in February.

“Just being able to compete with these guys and impact the team any way I can,” Schieffelin said of his goals. “I’m going into this very optimistic and ready to learn. Being able to compete every day is something I enjoy. To learn football and have fun.

“Maybe I’ll be really good, maybe I’ll be really bad. It’s something that was worth a shot. And being able to put a Clemson jersey on again is really special to me, and to do it this time in Death Valley is going to be amazing.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Yankees place Chisholm (oblique) on 10-day IL

Published

on

By

Yankees place Chisholm (oblique) on 10-day IL

NEW YORK — New York Yankees second baseman Jazz Chisholm Jr. was placed on the 10-day injured list Friday, the team announced, three days after sustaining a right oblique strain on a swing against the Baltimore Orioles.

Chisholm had been scheduled to undergo an MRI in New York on Thursday, an off day for the Yankees. The move is retroactive to April 30. Infielder Jorbit Vivas was recalled from Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre to replace Chisholm on the active roster.

Chisholm, 27, is batting .181 with seven home runs and a .714 OPS in 30 games; 10 of his 19 hits have been for extra bases. He has been a plus defender in his return to second base this season, his original position in the majors, after primarily playing center field for the Miami Marlins and third base for the Yankees last season.

Vivas, 24, has yet to make his major league debut. The Yankees called him up in late April, but he was sent back to Triple A three days later without appearing in a game.

Vivas is batting .319 with two home runs, an .862 OPS and 15 walks to eight strikeouts splitting time between second base and third base in the minors this season. The Yankees acquired him, alongside left-hander Victor Gonzalez, from the Los Angeles Dodgers for prospect Trey Sweeney in December 2023.

Continue Reading

Trending