NIL

Client Alert: NCAA House Settlement Approved | Whiteford

Published

6 months ago

June 10, 2025

On Friday, June 6, 2025, US District Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, finally approved the $2.8 billion settlement agreement arising from Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation (“Settlement Agreement”), a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Power Five Conferences challenging their rules restricting payments to student-athletes, including payments related to student-athletes names, images, and likenesses (NIL) for commercial purposes. The Settlement Agreement will reshape college sports by allowing universities to pay student-athletes directly starting July 1, 2025, effectively ending the NCAA’s longstanding argument that student-athletes are amateurs and should, therefore, not be paid.

Background

This class action began as three separate antitrust lawsuits, House v. NCAA (“House”), Hubbard v. NCAA (“Hubbard”), and Carter v. NCAA (“Carter”), each filed against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences challenging their rules prohibiting college athletes from receiving compensation.[1] The House case challenged the NCAA and the Power Five conferences’ rules barring student-athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their NIL, while Hubbard and Carter both challenged the NCAA and Power Five conferences’ rules prohibiting payments and certain education-related benefits for athletes’ services.[2] All three of these lawsuits were consolidated into In re College Athlete NIL Litigation alleging that these prohibitions violated antitrust law.[3]

This settlement comes on the heels of the landmark decision in In re Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation (“Alston”) in which the same United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, struck down the NCAA’s rules that limited the amount of education-related compensation and benefits that could be paid by colleges to student-athletes; a decision that was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit and affirmed by the Supreme Court.[4]

Settlement Terms

The terms of the settlement included a release of claims by the class members in exchange for, among other terms, payment of back damages by the NCAA and the Power Five conferences in the amount of $2.8 billion to those class members, revenue sharing by colleges directly with student-athletes, and certain rule changes in the NCAA and the Power Five conferences allowing for payment directly from the universities. More specifically, the terms include:

Release of Claims

In an effort to limit the amount of antitrust legislation brought against the NCAA in this new era of NIL, the Settlement Agreement provides that all class members who did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement, by entering into the Settlement Agreement, agree to release all claims and actions that could be brought against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences related to NCAA or conference rules about money and benefits that could be provided to the student-athletes for a period of 10 years.[5] The class members to the approved Settlement Agreement include (i) all student-athletes competing in Division 1 athletics between June 15, 2020 and ten academic years following the date of the final approval, (ii) all student-athletes who received full scholarships and competed on a Division 1, Power Five conference, men’s college basketball team or FBS football team, and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 and September 15, 2024, (iii) all student-athletes who received full scholarships and competed on a Division 1, Power Five conference, women’s basketball team and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024, and (iv) all student-athletes who competed on a Division 1 athletic team and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024.[6]

Change in Payment Rules

In exchange for the release of the claims by the class members, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to change certain rules restricting payments made to college athletes, both from the institutions themselves, and from third parties. The rule changes include:

Changing the NCAA Division 1 and Power Five conferences’ rules to allow payments to student-athletes, so long as they are consistent with the limitations of the Settlement Agreement.[7]
Allowing Division 1 colleges and Division 1 student-athletes to enter into licensing and endorsement agreements for the use of that student athlete’s NIL, institutional brand promotion, or other rights, provided that the agreement is not for the right to use a student athlete’s NIL for a broadcast of college games.[8] This licensing or endorsement agreement may not extend for longer than the student-athletes eligibility to participate in NCAA sports.[9]
Prohibiting the NCAA from having any rules prohibiting student-athletes from receiving payments from third parties for NIL, as long as the student-athletes adhere to the reporting requirements under the Settlement Agreement.[10]
Requiring Division 1 student-athletes to report to their respective colleges, the NCAA and/or a third-party clearinghouse run by the accounting firm Deloitte any and all third-party NIL contracts or payments with a total value of six hundred dollars ($600) or more.[11] The clearinghouse will be responsible for assessing the fair market value of transaction by using data from past endorsement deals signed by college and professional athletes to determine if the payment should be considered “pay-for-play.”[12]
Requiring each Power Five conference school, and all non-Power Five schools who choose to provide payments or benefits under this Agreement, to report each NIL contract or payment reported to the college and any agreement between the student-athlete and the college.[13]

Back Damages

In addition to the rule changes, the NCAA agreed to pay back damages in the amount of $2.8 billion to the class members who were restricted from earning compensation off of their NIL dating back to 2016. This payment will be distributed in annual installments over the course of ten years.[14]

Revenue Sharing by the Schools

The Settlement Agreement also allows, but does not require, Division 1 colleges to distribute additional payments or benefits to student-athletes above existing scholarships.[15] The additional payments amount to 22% (or $20.5 million projected in the first year) of the shared revenue received by each college each year earned through media rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, and other sources of revenue.[16] Third-party payments secured for the student-athletes do not count against the amount of money that may be distributed by the colleges to the student-athletes.[17]

Roster Limits

The draft Settlement Agreement eliminated scholarship limits in Division 1 programs but instead imposed roster limits in order to control the sizes of Division 1 teams.[18] After hearing several complaints surrounding the roster limits, Judge Wilken required the parties to agree on an alternative solution prior to approving the Settlement Agreement that would guarantee that no athletes would lose their roster spots. The solution allows schools, but does not require schools, to give players their roster spots back whose spots were cut due to the Settlement Agreement. Some examples of the roster limits imposed are 105 for football, 15 for men’s and women’s basketball, 48 for men’s lacrosse, 38 for women’s lacrosse, and 28 for men’s and women’s soccer.[19] This could include more scholarships for players but will limit the roster spots for walk-ons or partial scholarship athletes.

Opposition

Several athletes spoke out against the Settlement Agreement at an approval hearing held on April 7, 2025, before Judge Wilken. The objections included arguments that settlement payments are inaccurate and lack transparency with how they are calculated, challenges to the imposed roster limits, arguing that they would unfairly reduce opportunities for athletes, and concerns over the disproportionate financial distributions to football and basketball over Olympic sports. One notable objection came from Livvy Dunne, a gymnast from Louisiana State University, and one of the most profitable athletes in the NIL era, who argued that some calculations of damages were not accurate based on the value of some of the more profitable athletes lost. Several other athletes argued that the roster limits would create less opportunities for student-athletes who would have otherwise had opportunities on college sports teams.

There is also outspoken opposition to the implementation of a clearinghouse to determine whether payment to an athlete can correctly determine a student athlete’s fair market value. Several coaches have expressed their skepticism or come out against the NCAA outsourcing the enforcement of payments directly to athletes.[20]

Open Questions

Despite this Settlement Agreement bringing much needed structure to the landscape of NIL, there are still several unanswered questions regarding the future of paying student-athletes in college sports. Judge Wilken most notably stated that this class action is neither a Title IX case nor a labor and employment case and specifically stipulated that the Settlement Agreement does not preclude athletes from bringing cases alleging the NCAA violated Title IX or labor and employment laws, including wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the National Labor Relations Act.

Payments made pursuant to this Settlement Agreement could violate Title IX if they are made disproportionately to male athletes over female athletes, but the question still remains whether these payments are subject to Title IX. The Biden Administration’s US Department of Education initially provided guidance to schools that the payments directly from the schools were similar to financial aid and must therefore be proportionately distributed under Title IX.[21] The Trump Administration, however, recently rescinded that guidance, stating that Title IX states nothing “about how revenue generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student-athletes.”[22] Since there is no legal authority that payments directly from schools to student-athletes are covered under Title IX, it is still unclear whether payments could violate Title IX.

Additionally, the Settlement Agreement does not discuss whether student-athletes should be considered employees. There have been several petitions filed in recent years by student-athletes, including the University of Southern California men’s and women’s basketball teams, and the Northwestern football team, with the National Labor Relations Board, seeking to be classified as employees.[23] Dartmouth men’s basketball, the first successful student-athlete unionization, recently withdrew its petition to unionize after concerns that the new administration would result in a less favorable outcome for the team.[24] Although these athletes have not successfully been classified as employees, the Settlement Agreement does not prohibit student-athletes from continuing to bring these petitions.

There is also a question of whether international student-athletes playing in the United States will violate their visa status by taking payments.[25] Most student-athletes are on Class F class visas that prohibit almost all kinds of work while they are in the United States. It is still unclear whether the income generated by this Settlement Agreement or by NIL deals will violate international student athletes’ visas.

Although the Settlement Agreement will limit antitrust claims against the NCAA, the NCAA continues to ask Congress to provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA which would protect the NCAA from any additional antitrust lawsuits.[26] Congress has yet to act.[27]

This settlement finally allows colleges to directly pay athletes, there is, however, still ambiguity for the future of the NCAA and the compensation towards its athletes.

How Can We Help?

Whiteford is here to assist colleges and athletes navigate through this new era of NIL and college sports. Our team has extensive experience in advising clients on regulatory compliance, creating manuals, and providing guidance to ensure both athletes and their institutions are in compliance with the new NCAA rules and regulations. We continue to closely monitor the evolving and dynamic legal landscape affecting college sports.

[1] Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Statement Approval, at 3, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[5] Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 3, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[7] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 5-6, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[12] The Athletic College Football Staff, What’s at stake with the House v. NCAA settlement? Goodbye amateurism, hello revenue sharing, The Athletic (April 7, 2025); Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel, Sifting legitimate NIL deals from the darker world of pay-to-play, ESPN (April 2, 2025)

[13] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[14] Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 14, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[15] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 9, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[19] Appendix B to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 131, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

[20] Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel, Sifting legitimate NIL deals from the darker world of pay-to-play, ESPN (April 2, 2025)

[21] U.S. Department of Education Rescinds Biden 11^th Hour Guidance on NIL Compensation, U.S. Department of Education (February 12, 2025)

[23] Vern E. Inge, Jr., Claire Allenbach, Rafiq R. Gharbi, Client Alert: A Gift for NCAA Athletes? The NLRB Finds Merit for Employee-Athletes, Whiteford (January 5, 2023).

[24] Aryanna Qusba and Annabelle Zhang, Dartmouth men’s basketball team drops effort to unionize, The Dartmouth (January 2, 2025).

[25] Amanda Christovich, House v. NCAA Settlement Creates Potential Crisis for International Athletes, Front Office Sports (February 21, 2025).

[26] The Associated Press, What is the House settlement involving college sports and why does it matter? (April 7, 2025).

Link

NIL

Everyone caught up to Oregon’s business model. Can Ducks win it all in a world they pioneered?

Published

43 minutes ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

After decades of milestone wins on its climb to college football powerhouse status, Oregon found itself on the other side of a signature victory this season.

As Indiana celebrated on the Ducks’ home field on Oct. 11, an Oregon staffer shook the hand of a Hoosiers assistant coach and congratulated him on a 30-20 win that helped validate IU as a national championship contender.

“We’re hard to beat,” the Oregon staffer said.

No doubt. Since joining the Big Ten last year, the Ducks are 17-1 in conference play and 24-2 overall, with a league title in their debut season. Since 2010, Oregon is tied for fifth in the nation in victories with Oklahoma at 161. Only Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson and Georgia have more.

“We’ve been building to a standard of what winning football looks like, regardless of conference,” head coach Dan Lanning said this week.

After the Ducks spent years breaking through barriers that previously required something akin to birthright status for entry, college football has met them where they are. Adaptability and innovation are cornerstones of the Oregon brand, so of course, no school was better prepared to succeed when NCAA amateurism crumbled and the ability to effectively pay players became a necessity for programs that aspire to win national championships.

Oregon football has never been better, but the Ducks are no longer college football’s gate-crashers.

“There’s been some great stories in college football, but it’s even harder to stay there, and (the Ducks) have found a way to stay there,” said Craig Pintens, who was a high-ranking administrator at Oregon from 2011 through ’18 before becoming athletic director at Loyola Marymount.

In this year’s College Football Playoff, Indiana, Texas Tech and Ole Miss are the new-money climbers, no longer constrained by their histories.

The Ducks? Heading into a first-round home game against 12th-seeded James Madison on Saturday, they are just another team trying to win a championship.

Well, maybe not just another team.

You see, Oregon is not quite a member of the establishment class, either. It has a lot more in common with Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama and Miami these days than with the Hoosiers, Red Raiders and Rebels — with one notable exception.

That first group has combined for 13 national titles since 2000 and 34 in college football’s poll era, dating to 1936.

The Ducks are still seeking their first.

“They’ve built the entire sundae at this point,” Pintens said. “It’s just a matter of putting that cherry on the top. And it is inevitable. It’s going to happen.”

College football has never cultivated upward mobility. Past success is the best predictor of future success. Lineage and tradition are prized commodities.

The schools at the top of the food chain tend to stay there — or have an easier time getting back when they slip. Those toward the bottom generally get stuck.

There are outliers. Nebraska looks as if it may never recreate the glory days of the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. Clemson went from good to elite under Dabo Swinney, but that era of dominance is increasingly looking like a moment in time rather than a permanent change.

And then there’s Oregon, the most obvious exception that proves the rule.

The Ducks didn’t have USC’s Heritage Hall, a shrine to a program that claims 11 national titles and eight Heisman winners. They didn’t have Touchdown Jesus, Notre Dame’s iconic monument to the program’s essential place in the history of college football.

“We didn’t have the kinds of things that Ohio State and Texas and all these legacy programs had, but we did feel like we had a chance,” former Oregon athletic director Pat Kilkenny said.

The first baby step toward Oregon shedding its history came in Shreveport, La., of all places, with quarterback Bill Musgrave leading coach Rich Brooks’ Ducks to a victory in the program’s first postseason game in 26 years, the 1989 Independence Bowl against Tulsa.

The mid-1990s featured trips to the Rose and Cotton bowls that signaled progress but also showed the Ducks still had a long way to go: Oregon lost those games to Penn State and Colorado by a combined score of 76-26.

Nike co-founder and Oregon alum Phil Knight’s involvement and investment in the program brought a grander vision in the early 2000s. Why not put up a billboard in Times Square to promote quarterback Joey Harrington as a Heisman Trophy contender in 2001?

“I think our optimism was more about Holiday Bowl and Top 25,” said Kilkenny, an Oregon native. “But somebody like Phil Knight gets involved, that doesn’t work for him. He doesn’t want to do anything unless he can be the best.”

Oregon football had no distinguishing characteristics, so Knight helped create them.

With Nike’s help, Oregon made uniforms a differentiator in recruiting, unveiling a fresh look almost weekly.

“Being fashion-progressive isn’t exactly indicative of a strong football program, but (Knight) saw it as brand-building,” Kilkenny said.

The Ducks were on the front end of the spread offense revolution under coach Mike Bellotti, then promoted Chip Kelly to head coach and changed the way the game was played by optimizing fast-paced football.

When the facilities arms race was escalating, Oregon built its so-called Death Star, a tinted-glass fortress with a barber shop, sleep pods and tech-integrated lockers. The $68 million Hatfield-Dowlin Complex, funded largely by Knight, opened in 2013.

The Ducks reached the national championship game in 2010 and 2014, losing each time.

They haven’t been back since, which suggests the ascent has stalled. That’s not the case. Through a whirlwind of coaching changes from Kelly’s successor, Mark Helfrich, to Willie Taggart to Mario Cristobal to Lanning in the span of only seven years, Oregon was still progressing.

“I think they’ve built a tremendous culture, and that culture has turned over through multiple coaches,” said Pintens, who credits his former boss, athletic director Rob Mullens, with overseeing the continued growth at Oregon.

Even with Knight’s backing, Oregon is not among the top revenue-generating programs in college football.

“Oregon is not as resourced as some of the other top powers in college football,” Pintens said. “They lack a population base. They don’t play in a huge stadium.”

Autzen Stadium’s gameday experience is one of the best in the country, but the place seats about 56,000, about half the capacity of the largest stadiums in the Big Ten and SEC.

When Oregon spends, it spends on what matters most.

“If you want to be a top-10 team in college football, you better be invested in winning,” Oregon’s Dan Lanning said earlier this season in response to then-Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy’s comments about how much the Ducks’ roster costs. “We spend to win.”

In 2020, the NCAA lifted its ban on paying college athletes for their name, image and likeness. Quickly, those deals became a proxy for paying players, and Oregon was again an early adopter. Founded by Knight and other prominent donors, Division Street quickly became one of college football’s most well-run NIL collectives, groups that pool funds from boosters to license players’ rights.

Taggart and then Cristobal had already changed the nature of Oregon recruiting, turning the school into a destination for blue-chippers, despite the school’s limited number of those prospects within its geographic footprint.

Lanning was hired away from Georgia to keep that going in 2021. His ability to embrace a more transactional form of recruiting while still establishing a winning culture has allowed Oregon to narrow the gap between itself and the likes of Ohio State and Georgia.

NIL has been “an equalizing force,” Pintens said.

“You could have better facilities, you could have better coaching, better everything, but at the end of the day, if you don’t have any dollars to support that, it’s going to be really difficult to put together a team,” he said.

The transformation that took Oregon decades is happening much faster elsewhere, as paying players spreads talent around and gives the traditional have-nots a chance to become haves.

“The historical programs that weren’t able to compete, it did give them a chance to put a little jet propulsion into their football program, if that’s where they chose to invest,” Kilkenny said.

Fourth-seeded Big 12 champion Texas Tech, with a roster backed by billionaire booster Cody Campbell that reportedly cost more than $28 million, this season won its first outright conference title since 1955.

In the SEC, sixth-ranked Ole Miss has effectively mobilized its resources with the Grove Collective and ripped off three straight double-digit victory campaigns while LSU and Florida (with a combined six national titles) fired their head coaches this season.

In the Big Ten, Indiana, which started the year having lost more games than any other major college football program, has turned unprecedented investment into an unfathomable turnaround under coach Curt Cignetti. The Hoosiers kept rolling after the win in Eugene, knocked off Ohio State in the conference title game, and enter the Playoff as the No. 1 team in the country, boasting the program’s first Heisman Trophy winner in quarterback Fernando Mendoza. The Ducks are no longer the disruptors.

“The willingness and the belief in taking what had been done and saying, OK, we can be No. 1,” Kilkenny said. “We can win it all, and we can be a national brand, that has all happened.”

Oregon’s challenge now is not just to check the last box on the resume and join the blue bloods once and for all but to keep the new wave of gate-crashers from jumping ahead of them in line on the way to the top of the mountain.

Link

NIL

Kirk Herbstreit issues an apology for misunderstood post following Army-Navy game

Published

2 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Kirk Herbstreit drew the ire of the college football world earlier this week. Now, he’s moving quickly to clear the air after a social media post sparked backlash following the Army–Navy game.

Herbstreit, who’s become the face of ESPN’s college football coverage, addressed the situation in a lengthy post on X (formerly Twitter). He apologized for what he described as a misleading caption attached to a video clip promoting his Nonstop podcast with colleague Joey Galloway.

“Just wanted to address a mistake that we made on my socials earlier this week related to last weekend’s CFB Saturday,” Herbstreit wrote. “We posted a video where Joey Galloway and I were talking about how strange it was to be home and not traveling on a CFB weekend since the end of August and how we felt like we didn’t know what to do with ourselves. We posted the video with a caption that was very misleading about ‘Weird not having any CFB this weekend.’”

Herbstreit acknowledges that the wording created a bit of confusion, appearing dismissive of games that were played, most notably the Army–Navy Game: “Some took that out of context and ran with it. That’s on me,” he wrote. “My apologies for any disrespect (albeit unintentional) to the teams that played last weekend, especially [Army] and [Navy].”

The original post, which has since been deleted, included a clip from the podcast with the caption, “Saturday not having college football threw us for a loop,” accompanied by a laughing emoji. That message quickly drew a response from Navy Athletics, which quote-tweeted the post with a photo from Saturday’s game.

More on Kirk Herbstreit, Army-Navy controversy

Alas, Navy went on to defeat Army 17–16 in one of college football’s most iconic rivalry games, a matchup that has occupied a standalone window on the Saturday following conference championship weekend for years. While it has no impact on the College Football Playoff, the game remains one of the sport’s most-watched events, averaging 7.84 million viewers on CBS.

In his apology, Herbstreit emphasized that the Army–Navy Game remains one of his favorite events on the college football calendar: “Not sure there is a game I personally look forward to more EVERY year than Army and Navy,” Herbstreit added.

“They play for the love for each other and love for the game. Anybody who has ever watched me for the last 30 years on TV knows how I feel about that game.”

Beyond Army–Navy, last weekend still featured a full slate of college football action. Bowl season opened with Washington facing Boise State, the FCS playoffs held quarterfinal games, and South Carolina State defeated Prairie View A&M in the Celebration Bowl.

Listening back to the deleted clip itself, Herbstreit and Galloway never actually stated there was no football being played. Instead, they reflected on the unfamiliar feeling of being home for the first time since August without their usual travel routine.

Still, the initial caption struck a nerve. It highlighted how easily attention can drift toward the Playoff and power conference landscape at the expense of the broader sport.

Herbstreit closed his statement by reiterating that the controversy stemmed from miscommunication, not disrespect. At the least, he felt it necessary to publicly address the situation, and let the college football world know he meant no ill-will towards Army-Navy.

Link

NIL

$87 million coach reportedly offered ‘blank check’ by Michigan to replace Sherrone Moore

Published

3 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Kalen DeBoer has done his part to deny any interest in the Michigan head coaching vacancy, but that hasn’t stopped an army of vocal college football analysts from speculating that he could jump ship from Alabama and become the next head man of the Wolverines.

DeBoer signed an $87 million contract over eight years with Alabama early in 2024 as the man to replace Nick Saban, and so far the results have been up and down, but mostly positive.

However connected DeBoer may be to the Crimson Tide at this point in time, there are reportedly some serious power brokers linked to Michigan who are extending quite an invitation, according to ESPN analyst Greg McElroy.

What Michigan is offering Kalen DeBoer

“Michigan has been applying the full court press from the very beginning. Michigan has offered what I’ve been told is a blank check to try to get Kalen DeBoer out of Tuscaloosa and to Ann Arbor,” McElroy said on the Always College Football podcast.

That talk comes right as DeBoer has Alabama in the College Football Playoff, where he will seek to improve on his 0-2 record against Oklahoma in the first-round game on Friday.

“Now, the timing is unique here, because Kalen DeBoer is in the midst of preparing his team for [the playoff]. Frankly, I don’t think that Kalen DeBoer is ultimately going to take the job,” McElroy said.

“I don’t think Kalen DeBoer wants to take the job. I think Kalen DeBoer is happy at Alabama. I think the narrative that he’s unhappy, or he’s this or that or his family doesn’t like this or his family doesn’t like that, I think it’s untrue.”

Current insider reporting suggests that DeBoer’s representatives are seeking a contract extension from the school for the coach, but that remains a very fluid situation right now with no set conclusion.

But if DeBoer should lose to the Sooners again and get the Tide bounced from the playoff early?

Sure, it would raise the temperature around his tenure, but to suggest that it would be enough for him to abandon ship and try again at Michigan is unlikely.

Michigan will still pursue, however unlikely

“I think people are just grasping at straws, but it doesn’t mean that Michigan won’t continue to try to woo him,” McElroy said.

“It doesn’t mean they’re going to stop trying to go get him. They’re gonna try. Whatever they have to do, they’re gonna try, because there’s a lot of people that believe that Kalen DeBoer is one of the top coaches in America. So you go all in for that coach. And I think Michigan will continue to try to go all in on Kalen DeBoer.”

It stands to reason that Michigan, which finds itself in a coaching decision it didn’t expect to be in at this point in time, will do whatever they can to attract a big name.

But what if that big name already has a big job?

The feeling between Michigan and DeBoer is not mutual

“They can be interested. Is the interest actually reciprocated? I don’t know the answer to that, frankly. I frankly don’t think it is,” McElroy said.

“I think Kalen DeBoer, like I said, will be the head coach [at Alabama] moving forward, but he’s going to likely turn down more money at Michigan if he does end up staying in Tuscaloosa.

“At least, that’s what it sounds like right now. Because when I hear ‘blank check,’ you can interpret that how you want to interpret that.

“It sounds like, to me, Kalen DeBoer is going to be very wealthy on either side. But I do know that Kalen DeBoer is, right now, not interested in having a conversation with Michigan, and I do know this: that Michigan is not interested, yet, in accepting, the answer no.”

Bankruptcy trustee presses case against Deion Sanders’ son Shilo

Published

3 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Dec. 17, 2025, 10:04 p.m. ET

Shilo Sanders is in a legal dispute with a bankruptcy trustee over approximately $250,000 in alleged unauthorized fund transfers.
The core issue is whether Sanders’ NIL earnings belong to him or to the bankruptcy estate for his creditors.
Sanders filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October 2023 to discharge over $11 million in debt from a 2022 civil court judgment.

The trustee in the bankruptcy case of former Colorado football player Shilo Sanders filed a response in court Dec. 17 that supports his argument that Sanders violated bankruptcy law by making unauthorized transfers to himself of approximately $250,000.

The court filing is the latest volley in bankruptcy case of Sanders, who filed a Chapter 7 petition in October 2023 seeking to get out of more than $11 million in debt.

The trustee in the case, David Wadsworth, sued Shilo Sanders in October, seeking recovery of the money and an accounting from Sanders. Sanders’ attorney then filed a motion to dismiss that complaint in November by arguing that the trustee had it all wrong.

The latest filing from Wadsworth’s attorney rebuts that notion as litigation related to the bankruptcy case continues on multiple fronts in addition to this one. Sanders’ debt stems from a civil court judgment in Dallas in 2022.

“The Defendants are wrong,” the trustee’s attorney, Peter Cal, said in court documents.

What is at issue in Shilo Sanders’ bankruptcy case this time?

The court-appointed trustee in this case is in charge of rounding up Sanders’ non-exempt assets for the bankruptcy estate to divide among his creditors. The trustee has alleged having trouble doing that and filed a complaint against Sanders related to money he traced in Sanders’ business accounts for earnings from his name, image and likeness (NIL). Those businesses are named as defendants with Sanders in the complaint – Big 21 and Headache Gang.

The big issue is who the money in question belongs to – the bankruptcy estate or Sanders. Sanders’ earnings before he filed the bankruptcy petition generally belong to the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of creditors, while earnings that came from work after the bankruptcy filing belong to Sanders.

Sanders’ attorney, Keri Riley, stated in court documents that the money in question belonged to Sanders because they were “post-petition earnings.”

The trustee disputed that in his response Dec. 17 and said such factual disputes can’t be resolved at this stage of the litigation.

Sanders “relies on the unsupported argument that all funds in the Big 21 Bank Account were post-petition earnings of the Debtor (Sanders),” the trustee’s attorney stated. “The Court should not consider the argument because it relies upon a factual assertion that is not included in the (trustee’s) Complaint.”

The trustee’s attorney then includes a footnote.

“Because there were funds in the Big 21 Bank Account on the Petition Date, the Defendants’ argument is demonstrably wrong,” the footnote states.

Timing of Shilo Sanders’ NIL earnings in dispute

The trustee’s attorney also noted that “even if the earnings are paid to the Debtor post-petition, they are considered prepetition earnings when they arose from a prepetition contractual interest.”

He argued the trustee pleaded his case well enough for the trustee’s complaint against Sanders to move forward. A bankruptcy judge will decide on that.

“It is more than plausible that at least certain of the post-petition deposits were based on the Debtor’s prepetition NIL contracts and, therefore, are subject to turnover,” the trustee’s filing states.

The trustee said he wants Sanders to “account for the distributions” after “improperly” exercising control over property of the bankruptcy estate.

How did the Shilo Sanders bankruptcy case originate?

A security guard at Sanders’ school in Dallas sued Sanders and his parents in 2016, alleging Shilo caused him permanent and severe injuries when he tried to confiscate his phone at school in 2015, when Shilo was 15. The parents were dismissed from the case before trial, but when the case finally went to trial in 2022, Shilo didn’t show up for it and got hit with a $11.89 million default judgment as a result.

The security guard, John Darjean, then moved to collect on that judgment in 2023, leading Sanders to file for bankruptcy to try to get out of it.

Darjean is fighting that with a separate complaint that alleges the debt should not be discharged in bankruptcy court because it stems from a “willful and malicious” injury. Sanders has claimed he acted in self-defense. That complaint remains pending, as does a separate complaint from Darjean that accuses Sanders of improperly omitting or concealing assets in his bankruptcy closures, which he denied.

Link

NIL

$45 million college football head coach reportedly offers Lane Kiffin unexpected role

Published

4 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

The College Football Playoff travels to Oxford on Saturday with an unusual subplot: an 11-win Ole Miss team entering the postseason without the coach who compiled that record, Lane Kiffin.

Meanwhile, Tulane, which Ole Miss faces Saturday at 3:30 p.m. ET at Vaught-Hemingway Stadium, also has an outgoing coach, as Jon Sumrall has opted to finish the season in New Orleans before taking over at Florida.

Kiffin’s 2025 Rebels closed the regular season at 11–1, securing a CFP berth behind a high-powered offense that averaged 498.1 total yards per game, the third-most in college football.

Within days of the Egg Bowl, Kiffin accepted LSU’s offer, a reported seven-year contract worth roughly $91 million, and announced he would not coach Ole Miss in the playoff.

Ole Miss promptly elevated defensive coordinator Pete Golding to lead the program into the bracket.

On Wednesday, Sumrall broke down the matchup and joked that he had offered Kiffin a spot in Tulane’s coaches’ box.

“They’ve got a lot more stability for the game than people realize. They’re going to be who they’ve been; they’re just not going to have Lane on the sideline,” Sumrall said. “I’ve reached out to Lane to see if he wants to sit in our coaches’ box for the game, but he hasn’t given me an answer yet.”

Florida Gators head coach Jon Sumrall. — Gainesville, FL, USA; Florida Gators head coach Jon Sumrall smiles during the press conference at the Heavener Football Training Center at the University of Florida. | Matt Pendleton-Imagn Images

Tulane arrives after winning the American Athletic Conference and finishing 11–2.

The Green Wave boasts one of the nation’s best turnover margins (+10) and a defense that has tightened steadily since an early setback in Oxford on Sept. 20, a 45–10 loss.

Adding to the narrative, Sumrall, who signed a reported six-year, roughly $45 million deal to become Florida’s next head coach, has said he will remain with Tulane through the postseason before joining the Gators full-time.

Tulane has already designated passing-game coordinator Will Hall as Sumrall’s successor once the playoff run concludes.

This moment reflects a new normal in college football’s accelerated coaching market, with major hires unfolding as teams prepare for postseason play.

NIL

$36 million college football coach reportedly out of race for Michigan vacancy

Published

5 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Michigan is the last remaining Power Four college football program to find a new head coach in the 2026 cycle.

The Wolverines fired head coach Sherrone Moore on Dec. 10 with cause and are now one week into the coaching search. Alabama head coach Kalen DeBoer, Arizona State head coach Kenny Dillingham, and Missouri head coach Eli Drinkwitz are among those being floated as potential replacements.

One name that previously received attention for the vacancy was Washington head coach Jedd Fisch. On3 and ESPN college football insider Josh Pate reported Fisch’s interest in the Michigan head coaching vacancy has declined in the last few days.

“There’s been some sentiment today that maybe Jedd Fisch’s name has cooled,” Pate said. “I think that’s accurate. The critical take-home points are that I don’t know if Jedd Fisch is going to be a factor in the Michigan search moving forward… I don’t think Jedd Fisch is going to be an option for them.”

Washington Huskies head coach Jedd Fisch holds the LA Bowl championship belt | Jayne Kamin-Oncea-Imagn Images

Fisch’s waning interest is a relief to Washington, as it is all too familiar with head coaches leaving for other jobs. The Huskies lost Kalen DeBoer to Alabama in the 2024 offseason when Nick Saban announced his retirement from the Crimson Tide.

The Florida alumnus spent the first 24 seasons in the coaching ranks as an assistant at a high school, in the Arena Football League, at six different NFL franchises and five different college football programs. He served as Michigan’s passing game coordinator in 2015 and 2016 under Jim Harbaugh, part of the reason he is linked to the Wolverines’ current opening.

The only head-coaching capacity Fisch had served in before he took the Arizona vacancy was as UCLA’s interim coach in the 2017 Cactus Bowl against Kansas State.

Arizona finished 1-11 in 2021, the lone win against California (10-3) in November. The Wildcats improved to 5-7 in 2022, a record that included an upset victory over a ranked UCLA team. Fisch followed up a 3-3 start in 2023 with seven consecutive wins, including an Alamo Bowl win over Oklahoma (38-24).

Fisch filled the Washington vacancy left by DeBoer in the 2024 offseason. An up-and-down first season led to a 6-7 season, capped by a Sun Bowl loss to Louisville (35-34).

The Huskies put together a stronger effort in 2025. Washington concluded the regular season at 8-4 and defeated Boise State (38-10) in the LA Bowl in SoFi Stadium.

Link