The House settlement that was supposed to have calmed the college sports waters has done nothing but churn them. Here are four bullet points to know.
Three weeks into the new era of revenue sharing for college athletes — and the controversial clearinghouse for third-party NIL deals that came with it — insanity still reigns.
Legislation could be pending.
Litigation is definitely pending.
And the House vs. NCAA settlement that was supposed to calm the waters has only served to churn them. Of course, self-interest is the driving force behind the fight for a better way forward (read: better for whom?), but it's not your typical tug of war. Imagine one with multiple ropes knotted together in the center, and multiple factions tugging and warring from four ends, maybe six.
Week Zero can't get here fast enough.
And if you've got your head down on all this until the distraction of the 2025 football season mercifully arrives, here are the bullet points that will get you up to speed:
∎ The House settlement faces not one, not two, but SEVEN appeals. Among them is a challenge under Title IX, which alleges that the settlement underfunds female athletes, while another represents non-revenue sports regardless of gender. Football makes the money, and that's why football players are eating most of the pie. But whether a judge will agree is anyone's guess. Still another appeal takes aim at whether the rev-share cap unlawfully limits athlete compensation. The fact that third-party NIL deals still exist apart from rev-share seems like a fine defense to this argument, but then again, the NCAA struggles to put anything in the legal win column.
∎ Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the House settlement are already raising hell about the new system in place to approve or reject NIL deals. The pay-for-play deals from booster-funded collectives are being rejected out of hand, as they should be. The clearinghouse that sits in judgement of NIL contracts, NIL Go, actually wants to see alignment between the true value of an athlete's name, image and likeness, and what that athlete is being paid. Third-party determination of true NIL value is tricky business and ripe for litigation, but at least now, true NIL value is part of the equation. The paying end of NIL deals now have to get legitimate ROI (return on investment). What's meant by legitimate? Touchdowns don't count.
∎ The SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements) was introduced in the House of Representatives two weeks ago, with bipartisan support. It would give the NCAA some antitrust protection, pre-empt all the contrasting state laws on NIL, and stave off the establishment of a union and collective bargaining by preventing athletes from being classified as school employees. Anyone think seven Senate Democrats will sign off? That's what it would take for passage, along with full support from the other side (53 Senate Republicans). Good luck with that.
∎ How about an executive order on NIL from President Donald Trump, just to add spice onto spice? CBS News reported last week that a Trump EO on NIL was forthcoming. Of course, a President's EO's can always be undone by the next, so whatever comes of this, it can't be called permanent. Then again, a single Presidential term is an eternity compared to the speed at which the NIL environment has changed since its inception.
Tuscaloosa News columnist Chase Goodbread is also the weekly co-host of Crimson Cover TV on WVUA-23. Reach him at [email protected]. Follow on X.com @chasegoodbread.
This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: Four things that make House settlement, NIL madness anything but settled
Category: General Sports
