NIL
Boulder law firm files appeal of House v. NCAA settlement – Boulder Daily Camera
A law firm in Boulder representing a group of female athletes filed an appeal of the House v. NCAA settlement on Wednesday. The firm of Hutchinson Black and Cook (HBC) is arguing that the landmark settlement, which was approved on Friday by Judge Claudia Wilken in Northern California, violates the gender equity statute in Title […]
A law firm in Boulder representing a group of female athletes filed an appeal of the House v. NCAA settlement on Wednesday.
The firm of Hutchinson Black and Cook (HBC) is arguing that the landmark settlement, which was approved on Friday by Judge Claudia Wilken in Northern California, violates the gender equity statute in Title IX.
According to FrontOfficeSports.com, this is the first appeal of the House settlement. There are expected to be more appeals in the coming months based on Title IX.
A big part of the settlement is $2.8 billion in damages to be distributed to qualified Division I athletes who competed from 2016-2024, as compensation for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting revenue.
The settlement will also allow for colleges to begin paying student-athletes through revenue sharing on July 1. In addition, there will be a process implemented to make sure name, image and likeness (NIL) deals are not pay-for-play deals, and there are new roster limits in place for various sports.
It is the back pay portion of the settlement that is under appeal, as potentially 90% of that $2.8 million is expected to go to football and men’s basketball players, as those are the two sports that generate the vast majority of the revenue in college athletics.
The athletes represented by HBC are: Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia. All of them previously filed objections to the proposed settlement.
HBC’s involvement stems from a history of Title IX litigation, and the firm has been building a sports law practice. In addition, Breeding, who graduated from Vanderbilt in 2020, currently lives in Boulder and began working with HBC attorney Ashlyn Hare on this case in building the list of clients.
Hare provided a statement to BuffZone on reasons for appealing the settlement.
“We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law,” Hare said. “The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of 1.1 billion dollars. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women’s sports.
“This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes. Title IX was created to rein in efforts such as these. Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX’s antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case.”
Title IX is federal legislation that requires schools to provide opportunities for men and women in academics and athletics. Signed into law in 1972, Title IX has required schools to provide equitable roster positions and scholarship funds for men and women.
In her ruling last week, Wilken determined that Title IX was not applicable in the settlement. Many disagree, however, which has led to Wednesday’s appeal and perhaps more appeals to come.
“The settlement suggests schools would have paid male athletes over 90% of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn’t apply,” Hare said. “If Nike wants to do that, that is their choice. If the school, or a conference acting on the school’s behalf tries to do that, they are violating the law. They can either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds. But they can’t do both.
“Title IX was deliberately misconstrued and ignored in this settlement. The parties and Court acted like it was adequately addressed when it clearly was not. Complying with Title IX was a problem in this settlement, so they just chose to ignore it. That can’t stand. The very foundation of this damages settlement violates federal law, and it comes at a steep cost that would once again set back female athletes. This appeal is to bring attention to the $1.1 billion blunder that will devalue women’s sports for years to come.”
This appeal will not stop schools from beginning payments to current student-athletes on July 1, but it does halt plans by the NCAA to begin distributing the $2.8 billion in back pay.
In January, during the final days of the Biden Administration, the federal government issued guidance that state NIL and revenue sharing payments must be “proportionately available” to male and female athletes. That mandate was rescinded, however, by the Department of Education just a few weeks later in February during the early days of the Trump Administration.
Originally Published: