Legal Cases and Settlements

Subscribe to Legal Cases and Settlements via RSS

A three-page memo distributed to schools provides further clarity regarding Deloitte’s role as the approved clearinghouse for name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, as outlined in the House settlement and guidance documents. Deloitte’s NIL clearinghouse and review platform will be known as “NIL Go.” We briefly addressed the role of the NIL clearinghouse in a previous blog post.

On May 7, the parties in House v. NCAA submitted supplemental briefs in response to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s April 23 order[1] requiring both parties to address her concerns over the issue of roster limits. These briefs (i) revised the terms of the proposed settlement agreement and (ii) detailed how the revisions would ensure “that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”[2]

On Monday, a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Kansas basketball player Mario Chalmers and 15 other former college basketball players. The plaintiffs all played college basketball before June 15, 2016 — the proposed start date for the House settlement pending approval in the Northern District of California — meaning they would not be beneficiaries of that settlement. Accordingly, the former players sued the NCAA and the conferences in which their respective institutions competed, alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust law by forcing the players to agree to amateurism rules and forgo compensation for use of their NIL while the NCAA and defendant conferences simultaneously generated revenue from use of the players’ NIL.

On April 25, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi ordered the NCAA not to enforce its Five-Year Rule against Rutgers University cornerback Jett Elad.[1] The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements on the new world of Division I sports underpinned two key findings in the opinion: (1) the NCAA’s junior college rule (JUCO Rule) is subject to federal antitrust laws; and, (2) Elad had a likelihood of success on the merits because Division I student-athletes have a greater ability to benefit from NIL agreements compared to non-Division I athletes.

On April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken temporarily rejected the terms of the settlement in House v. NCAA, effectively issuing an ultimatum to the parties: fix the roster limits issue or risk blowing up the settlement. We have discussed the House case and the terms of the settlement in several NIL Revolution blog posts and Highway to NIL podcast episodes.

On April 21, the Division I Board of Directors (Board) greenlit major National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rule changes that are contingent on court approval of the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement. If the settlement is approved, these changes would eliminate more than 150 rules, many of which conflict with the settlement’s terms, and create new rules related to enforcement and oversight of the school distributions and student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments.

Rutgers University football player Jett Elad is one of the latest student-athletes to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[1] Elad’s lawsuit challenges what he calls the NCAA’s “arbitrary and unreasonable” application of its new waiver allowing student-athletes who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school (e.g., junior college (JUCO)) for one or more years to remain eligible to compete in 2025-26 academic year (JUCO Waiver).

How NCAA Division I conferences choose to deal with the implications of the House, et al., v. NCAA, et al. settlement, and in particular the revenue-sharing mechanism known as the “pool,” has been the subject of much speculation and debate. Commentators have asked whether conferences will require participation, or leave…

Texas’s biennial legislature is in session, and revamping Texas’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws to keep up with the developments across the U.S. seems to be a hot topic. As of the date of this post, state representatives have filed seven bills that would affect NIL in the state and potentially allow Texas high schoolers to benefit from their NIL.