NIL

Isa Torres and Kennedy Harp Named NFCA All-Americans

OKLAHOMA CITY – For the seventh time in the last nine seasons, Florida State Softball put multiple players on the NFCA All-American teams as Isa Torres was named a First Team All-American and Kennedy Harp was named a Second Team All-American on Wednesday afternoon. Torres is FSU’s first NFCA First Team All-American since Sydney Sherrill […]

Published

1 week ago

May 28, 2025

Your Sports Nation

OKLAHOMA CITY – For the seventh time in the last nine seasons, Florida State Softball put multiple players on the NFCA All-American teams as Isa Torres was named a First Team All-American and Kennedy Harp was named a Second Team All-American on Wednesday afternoon.

Torres is FSU’s first NFCA First Team All-American since Sydney Sherrill in 2019. Torres and Harp become FSU’s 38th and 39th players to earn an All-American honor. FSU now holds 59 total All-America honors in its history, 26 of them coming under Head Coach Lonni Alameda.

Both Torres and Harp helped FSU break the school record for batting average (.346), hit the third most home runs in school history (83), score the fourth most runs in school history (452) and record the fourth most hits in school history (566).

Torres had one of the best offensive seasons in school history for the Garnet and Gold to help her become a consensus First Team All-American as she was named a First Team All-American by Softball America, D1Softball and the NFCA. Torres broke the single season batting average record (.436), finished third in FSU history for most hits in a single season and was tied for fourth for most runs scored in a single season (70). Torres finished the year with nine home runs and 45 RBI on her way to a First Team All-ACC and First Team NFCA All-Region season. Torres recorded a hit in 51 out of FSU’s 61 games this season and reached base in 54 out of FSU’s 61 games.

Harp was a breakout star for the Seminoles in 2025 and became an instant threat in the Seminoles’ lineup. Harp finished the year with a .412 average with 10 home runs and 49 RBI in 49 games. More impressively, Harp hit 10 triples which was one triple shy of tying the school record. Harp led the team with a .765 slugging percentage and was second on the team with 15 stolen bases on 18 attempts. Harp started her year by recording a RBI in the first 10 games of the season which was the longest streak in school history.

For updates and exclusive content, follow the Seminoles on X (FSU_Softball), Instagram (fsusoftball) and Facebook (Florida State Seminoles Softball).

Link

NIL

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how

A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. […]

Published

6 minutes ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics:

Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter?

A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA.

Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from?

A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress ”those are resources and revenues that don’t exist.” Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through ”talent fees,” concession price hikes and ”athletic fees” added to tuition costs.

Q: What about scholarships? Wasn’t that like paying the athletes?

A: Scholarships and ”cost of attendance” have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches’ salaries. They took those arguments to court and won.

Link

NIL

Direct Pay, NIL Rules, Roster Limits, and a Cap

A new chapter in college athletics has officially begun. On Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a deal that permits schools to directly pay their student-athletes. Previously, athletes earned money through third-party NIL deals, some of which were outrageously expensive. Athletes can still land NIL deals, but for any payment of $600 or more, the deal […]

Published

7 minutes ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

A new chapter in college athletics has officially begun.

On Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a deal that permits schools to directly pay their student-athletes. Previously, athletes earned money through third-party NIL deals, some of which were outrageously expensive. Athletes can still land NIL deals, but for any payment of $600 or more, the deal will need to be approved through a clearinghouse, named NIL Go, which will be run by Deloitte, on behalf of the College Sports Commission. Approvals/rejections of deals are expected to be determined in roughly 24 hours.

For the 2025-26 sports season, schools will be operating with a $20.5 million cap, which will increase each year by at least 4%. It is up to each school to decide how that money will be divided up amongst its programs, but most Division I schools will spend the majority of their money on football and men’s basketball, of course.

In previous months, West Virginia athletic director Wren Baker has stated on numerous occasions that he felt confident that WVU would be at or near the full revenue share, which will help them be competitive. Being at the cap each year will be a new challenge for Baker and his fellow ADs. Falling way short will put those schools at a serious disadvantage.

As far as the football roster is concerned, yes, rosters are shrinking. Teams will be capped at 105 players, all of whom can be on scholarship, although it’s unlikely that all 105 will be. Rich Rodriguez did get his wish, however, in that players who were on a 2024-25 roster can be grandfathered in, allowing a team to surpass the 105 limit until said player(s) eligibility is exhausted.

NIL

Judge OKs House v. NCAA settlement to allow revenue sharing with athletes

Judge Claudia Wilken approved a settlement Friday for a trio of class-action lawsuits, known as House v. NCAA, to allow schools to directly share revenue with their athletes. NCAA institutions will be permitted to share up to $20.5 million total with athletes from July 1, 2025, to July 1, 2026. The shareable amount will increase […]

Published

46 minutes ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Judge Claudia Wilken approved a settlement Friday for a trio of class-action lawsuits, known as House v. NCAA, to allow schools to directly share revenue with their athletes.

NCAA institutions will be permitted to share up to $20.5 million total with athletes from July 1, 2025, to July 1, 2026. The shareable amount will increase each year.

Schools are not required to share revenue and are allowed to determine how the revenue will be shared among different sports. Most Power 5 schools are planning to allocate 90% of the funds to football and men’s basketball because of their popularity and ability to generate revenue, according to Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports. Women’s basketball, baseball, volleyball, and Olympic sports are expected to receive the majority of the remaining 10%.

In addition to allowing schools to pay current athletes, many athletes that played from 2016-24 will be eligible to receive a portion of a $2.8 billion backpay agreement that was approved with the settlement. The NCAA will pay those athletes over the next 10 years.

“(The NCAA) will focus on further enhancing what is working: elevating the student-athlete experience and maintaining fair playing rules and eligibility and academic standards,” NCAA president Charlie Baker said in a statement endorsing the settlement. “Student-athletes will benefit from the rich opportunities they enjoy now, plus far more scholarship opportunities, landmark financial benefits and a streamlined NCAA to support them.”

A new entity, the College Sports Commission, will oversee payment details. MLB vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel Bryan Seeley is being hired to run the commission.

In addition to the College Sports Commission, a Deloitte-run clearinghouse called NIL Go will need to approve all NIL deals worth $600 or more, Dellenger reported.

Link

NIL

Gerry Glasco wants less focus on NiJaree Canady's NIL deal with Texas Tech softball

Published

52 minutes ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Gerry Glasco wants less focus on NiJaree Canady's NIL deal with Texas Tech softball

AI-assisted summaryGlasco argued that the focus on Canady’s compensation overshadows her athletic achievements and perpetuates gender inequality in sports.He emphasized the significant value Canady brought to the team, exceeding the financial investment of her NIL deal.Glasco advocated for clearer rules and guidelines surrounding NIL deals in the future.OKLAHOMA CITY — Even after the Texas Tech softball team’s season came to a bitter end in the finals of the Women’s College World Series, Gerry Glasco had to be asked about NiJaree Canady’s name, image and likeness deal.

Since Canady’s arrival last July, she and her head coach have fielded question after question about the nature of the agreement with The Matador Club — most from national outlets who dropped in on the Red Raiders throughout the season — what it means for Canady, the player, and Glasco, the leader of the Red Raiders. By the end of Friday night’s press conference following the 10-4 loss to Texas in a winner-take-all game for the national championship, Glasco had had enough.

Glasco gave it a second before answering the question from a national outlet’s reporter. He began by saying he was in no way, shape or form the right person to be talking about NIL. He did, however, have a few thoughts on the focus — even 11 months after it became public knowledge — on Canady’s deal.”Why is it different for a female athlete to be paid $1 million than a male football player getting three million or four million, or a male basketball player?” Glasco rhetorically asked. “I think that’s an interesting question.” Jun 4, 2025; Oklahoma City, OK, USA; Texas Tech Red Raiders head coach Gerry Glasco talks to pitcher NiJaree Canady (24) in the first inning against the Texas Longhorns during game one of the NCAA Softball Women's College World Series finals at Devon Park. Mandatory Credit: Brett Rojo-Imagn Images Glasco took Canady’s situation and compared it to that of the Ohio State football team, which was known to have paid a hefty amount for it’s national championship-winning team. While NIL might be mentioned in discussions about the Buckeyes, it rarely appears on TV broadcasts, he said.

Canady and the Red Raiders were not afforded that luxury. Each time Texas Tech made it onto ESPN, the bulk of the talking points — after Canady’s talent — were those about the NIL deal that brought her to Lubbock.

“Personally, I’m thrilled for NiJa,” Glasco said, adding that he loves the idea of any athlete being able to capitalize on themselves, leaving school without years of student loans to pay off. “I found it almost insulting to her at times when I listen to broadcasts, how much they talk about it.

“Like I said, I don’t hear it when we talk about… when we watch a men’s basketball game or a men’s football game. And to me, that’s not right. That shouldn’t be that way.”

The Texas Tech head coach pointed out something he reiterated before the WCWS began: Canady’s deal may be big and historic, but the return on investment might be the highest in the short history of NIL.

“The value of NiJa Canady to our program is, I think, it’s unbelievable,” Glasco said. “I’m no expert, or somebody could do an in-depth study, but I have no doubt it would exceed a million dollars of value.”

The Matador Club seems to agree with Glasco. The Tech NIL collective signed Canady to another lucrative deal that was reported Friday before the championship game.

Glasco sees this is an opportunity for everybody to learn and grow from.

“I think that our sport, I’m thrilled for the athletes that are getting to take advantage,” Glasco said. “I also think that we have to use great caution. It’s a new policy. It’s a new. … I don’t know what the right word (is), but it’s a new situation and obviously a lot of rules and guidelines need to be used or set, established in the coming years.”

NIL

House vs. NCAA settlement will make Alabama the king of college football once again

It’s a new era in college football, and one that should help Alabama football return to the mountaintop of the sport. Late Friday night, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a $2.88 billion settlement between the House and the NCAA that opens the door for institutions to begin revenue sharing and paying their student-athletes directly. The NCAA […]

Published

1 hour ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

It’s a new era in college football, and one that should help Alabama football return to the mountaintop of the sport.

Late Friday night, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a $2.88 billion settlement between the House and the NCAA that opens the door for institutions to begin revenue sharing and paying their student-athletes directly.

The NCAA will pay $2.8 billion in back-damages to athletes across all sports who participated in collegiate athletics from 2016 to now. Beginning July 1st, schools will cut checks to their athletes. The annual “cap” is expected to begin at $20.5 million and steadily rise over the next decade.

The biggest beneficiary will be football players, who stand to make the majority of the revenue-sharing money because football brings in the majority of the revenue. Roughly 75% of the $20.5 million for each athletic department will be earmarked for the football program. 15% is expected to go to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball, and the remaining 5% will be split among all other sports.

This will also result in roster limits. Football will have to cut rosters to 105 players, though they can temporarily exceed that limit to grandfather in current athletes so they aren’t having to cut the majority of the program’s walk-ons. The 80-man scholarship limit is no more.

Basketball’s roster limit will be at 15, meaning two additional scholarships will be available.

What does all of this mean for Alabama football?

It’s good news for Alabama and its path to reclaiming its throne atop the college football mountaintop. Unregulated NIL deals are a thing of the past. While student athletes will still be able to sign NIL deals, any deal exceeding $600 will have to be sent through a clearinghouse run by Deloitte to ensure the deal is “fair market value” based on an actual endorsement.

That clearinghouse can also reject deals that come from groups classified as “associated entities or individuals, meaning the days of big money boosters funding massive NIL packages for student-athletes appear to be over. Instead, NIL will be what it was intended to be: a way for athletes to market themselves and make money off their own merit and brand. It was never intended to be pay-for-play.

Alabama is far from “poor” in the NIL space, but they are also nowhere close to the top of the marketplace, either. The Crimson Tide hasn’t had the money to compete with the likes of Oregon, Texas A&M, Texas, Michigan, and others. It hasn’t stopped Alabama from recruiting well, but they’ve landed discounts thanks to their superior brand recognition and NFL pedigree.

That brand recognition and pedigree will carry the program forward in this new era of college football. They’ll no longer have to worry about big-money programs throwing eight-figure NIL deals to recruits and stealing them out from under their noses.

Shady backroom deals will undeniably still take place, but they won’t be able to be done as out in the open, and there seems to be legitimate enforcement of the rules coming.

Alabama figures to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the House settlement. The “Bama Discount” was real during this unregulated era, but it still kept the Crimson Tide from recruiting on the same level it enjoyed during the Nick Saban era.

Now, with revenue sharing starting July 1st, Alabama will be Alabama again on the recruiting trail, and the Crimson Tide will ascend toward the top of the sport.

Link

NIL

What does House settlement mean for college sports? We break it down.

A settlement allowing revenue sharing with NCAA athletes will transform college sports. How will this new system work? We break down what it all means. Latest on NCAA settlement that would allow revenue sharing for college athletes USA TODAY Sports’ Steve Berkowitz discusses the latest on judge’s refusal to approve NCAA settlement that would allow […]

Published

1 hour ago

June 7, 2025

Your Sports Nation

A settlement allowing revenue sharing with NCAA athletes will transform college sports. How will this new system work? We break down what it all means.

After nearly five years of litigation, a federal judge on the night of Friday, June 6 granted final approval to a settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences that is now set to fundamentally change college sports.

Unless altered on appeal, the arrangement will allow — though not require — schools to directly pay their athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness (don’t call it pay for play), subject to an annual cap based on a percentage of a defined set of Power Five athletics department revenues. These payments could begin July 1.

Current and former athletes, over a 10-year period, will receive shares of $2.8 billion in damages (as will the lawyers who represented them).

For schools that opt in to paying their athletes, the NCAA’s current system of sport-by-sport athletic scholarship limits will be scrapped in favor of sport-by-sport roster limits. However, after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken initially refused to approve the settlement because implementation of the limits starting with the 2025-26 school year would have resulted in thousands of athletes losing their spots on Division I teams, the deal was revised in a fashion that effectively could delay full implementation of the limits for several years. The elimination of the scholarship limit will result in new athletic scholarships being awarded.

In addition, while athletes will continue to be allowed to make name, image and likeness deals with entities other than their schools, there will be an effort by the power conferences (not the NCAA) to bring greater scrutiny to those arrangements, under the direction of a new entity called the College Sports Commission. Regardless of whether their school opts in to making NIL payments, any Division I athlete who has a deal, or deals, worth $600 or more will have to report those deals to (get ready for the new college-sports jargon) to system called “NIL Go.” That data will then by be evaluated to determine whether the deal has a “valid business purpose” and is within “a reasonable range of compensation,” whatever those terms are deemed to mean.

Again, the Commission will not be operated by the NCAA, but rather by the conferences, and the Commission will be charged with investigating alleged malfeasance, enforcing rules and penalizing rule-breakers.

That means there’s a lot left to be sorted out, and that’s without considering myriad other tangential, or unrelated, to the settlement.

This marks “the formal beginning of the greatest transformation in college sports history, period,” Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law Program and Tulane University’s associate provost for NCAA compliance, told USA TODAY Sports before the settlement was announced. “But I think the key, even after approval of the settlement, is that the changes in college sports are just starting. The settlement will likely trigger a series of additional changes, legal challenges and efforts to get Congressional intervention. This is not the end of a chapter — or, if it’s the end of a chapter, a new chapter will be beginning soon after. …

“I think there are as many unanswered questions — and probably more unanswered questions — than answered questions that will come from the settlement.”

Can the House settlement be appealed?

Wilken’s final-approval ruling can be taken to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is not certain whether it will be appealed, but objecting parties have 30 days to decide. The contentiousness surrounding the roster limits could result in one or more of the objectors who were focused on that issue not only appealing, but also seeking a stay that would delay implementation of the entire settlement.

Such objectors would need the stay because, as the settlement was approved by Wilken, if there is an appeal, all of the forward-looking actions, including schools being able to pay athletes and roster limits for the 2025-26 academic season, are set to be allowed to proceed, even pending the appeal. The NCAA and the conferences would begin making damages payments, but the money would be held in escrow — not paid to athletes or lawyers — until appeals are completed. And other appeals could come from objectors who raised issues, including whether the settlement violates Title IX for reasons including the disproportionate allocation of damages among men’s and women’s athletes; the legality of one limit on pay to athletes being replaced by another one; and whether the rights of future college athletes are being unfairly handled.

What will be pay cap for schools paying players for NIL?

A final determination of what the per-school cap will be for the 2025-26 cycle has not yet been made. The NCAA, in a document summarizing rules changes approved on April 21 by the Division I Board of Directors but contingent on settlement approval, said the cap is estimated to be $20.5 million.

However, in a written declaration filed with the court on March 3 in support of final approval, plaintiffs’ economics expert Dan Rascher projected that the cap would be $23.1 million.

According to the settlement documents, the Power Five schools’ financial data that forms the basis for the cap generally must be provided to the plaintiffs’ lawyers by May 15 of each year. The plaintiffs have the right to “reasonably audit such data.”

The cap is set to increase annually by 4%, except in Years 4, 7 and 10, when new baselines would be established based on the defined set of Power Five athletics department revenues. However, under certain circumstances connected to the timing and value of media rights contracts, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have two options during the 10-year settlement period to have new baselines set more quickly.

One hook to all of this is that the amount of money that schools can pay to their athletes for use of the NIL will be reduced by the value of new, or incremental, athletic scholarships they award above the number of scholarships currently allowed in a given sport, up to a maximum of $2.5 million. In an example from the settlement documents, a school currently offering 9 baseball scholarships, versus the 11.7 permitted by NCAA rules, that decides to offer 15 baseball scholarships will have added an incremental total of 3.3.

So, if the initial cap is $20.5 million and a school awards $2.8 million in new scholarships, it could only make $18 million in NIL payments to athletes. This math has no impact on the NIL deals that athletes make with non-school entities, as long as those deals are approved under the Commission process.

What are the scholarship and roster limits?

There are several aspects to this. According to the principals, one of the justifications for roster limits was the lifting of the scholarship limits. But while some schools have said they will be adding scholarships — Texas and Ohio State, for example — this is not a requirement for schools. Southeastern Conference schools, at least for now, have agreed to not add to the current 85 football scholarships, a conference spokesman said at the conference’s recent spring meetings.

On the flip side, there could be current walk-ons who lose spots. The NCAA and the settlement say that athletes who are on scholarship and lose their roster spots must have their scholarships honored.

Under the settlement, schools would have the option to exempt from the limits any athlete who was on a roster in 2024-25 and who has been or would have been removed for 2025-26 because of the limits for the remainder of their college careers. It also would let schools similarly accommodate any high school senior who was “recruited to be, or was assured they would be” on a Division I school’s roster for the 2025-26 school year. These athletes are to be identified by the schools as “Designated Student-Athletes.”

However, this did not remove the roster limits from the settlement. And this did not require schools to keep all of their current athletes on their rosters — or to exceed the roster limits at any point. It just gave them the option to do so if they carried a “Designated Student-Athlete.”

The impact of roster limits could be felt in many sports, although NCAA officials have said NCAA governing groups are still working through a variety of details, including preseason practice squad sizes and how a team might be able to replace an injured player. In football, for instance, the roster limit will be 105. Walk-ons have been a huge part of the football culture at a number of schools. According to their respective fiscal-year 2024 financial reports to the NCAA, Nebraska had 180 football players, Texas A&M 143.

Meanwhile, as USA TODAY reported in May 2022 in one of a series of stories marking the 50^th anniversary-of-Title-IX series, there are schools that have been using large roster counts in some women’s sport to address athletic-opportunity requirements connected to Title IX, the federal gender equity law. Wisconsin had 151 women’s rowers, according to its FY24 NCAA financial report. The women’s rowing roster limit under the settlement is 68.

How will Title IX impact payments to men’s and women’s sports?

Georgia and Texas Tech among other schools, have said they plan to allocate large percentages of the money they pay to athletes to football players and men’s basketball players. Because this money will be coming from the schools, rather than third parties, this seems all but certain at some point to result in a Title IX lawsuit. As objectors have noted in their legal arguments, Title IX states, in part that no person “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

An array of objectors to the settlement, and their attorneys, vehemently raised Title IX issues about how the damages money is overwhelmingly set to go to football and men’s basketball players. Among their arguments was that such an arrangement would lead schools to have an extremely disproportionate payment structure going forward. The counter to this argument is that, in general, football and men’s basketball players have greater market value than women’s athletes, and that head coaches in football and men’s basketball, generally, are paid much more than coaches of women’s teams.

The counter to this counter, as one set of objectors argued, is that by historically “failing to invest in women’s sports, the NCAA depressed the value of women’s NILs relative to their male counterparts. The parties know this.”

While overruling Title IX-related objections to the settlement, Wilken wrote: “To the extent that schools violate Title IX when providing benefits and compensation to student-athletes … (athletes) will have the right to file lawsuits arising out of those violations.”

The Biden Administration in January issued guidance saying NIL payments from schools were subject to Title IX scrutiny. The Trump Administration has rescinded that guidance.

What new procedures for college sports are being implemented?

While NCAA governance groups have set up changes to the association’s rules to accommodate the settlement, the NCAA’s central-office investigative and enforcement staffs are not going to be involved in the day-to-day oversight and operation of rules and procedures created by the settlement.

That work is being left to the power conferences and the new College Sports Commission, which will handle:

Rules-making.

Managing the NIL Go system, an electronic system that athletes will be required to use to report the details of their NIL deals with entities other than their schools.

Figuring out how to determine the legitimacy of those deals, and how to deal with appeals by athletes, who — under the settlement — can seek arbitration if they want to challenge a determination that a deal is not legitimate relative to having a “valid business purpose” and being within “a reasonable range of compensation.”

Forming a new regulatory and enforcement entity that will be led newly named chief executive officer Bryan Seeley. According to the announcement of his hiring on June 6, Seeley “will build out the organization’s investigative and enforcement teams and oversee all of its ongoing operations and stakeholder relationships. … Seeley and his team will also be responsible for enforcement of the new rules around revenue sharing, student-athlete third-party name image and likeness (NIL) deals, and roster limits. The Commission will investigate potential rules violations, make factual determinations, issue penalties where appropriate, and participate in the neutral arbitration process set forth in the settlement as necessary.”

Attendant to all of this will be training school administrators in all of the new procedures and systems. In addition, Seeley faces the more intangible task of attempting to create buy-in and a culture of compliance among schools, administrators and coaches who are always looking for an edge on their competitors, and, in recent years, have become increasingly hostile toward investigations and enforcement from the NCAA, at least.

While there will be a cap on schools’ total pay to athletes, the athletes’ ability to have deals with other entities still leaves plenty of room for inequities, perceived or otherwise.

What will school NIL deals with athletes look like?

They will be anything except “employment” agreements. (The issue of athletes as school employees remains pending before a federal district court in Pennsylvania, where the NCAA and schools are arguing for dismissal, and for consideration from Congress, where Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, continues to pursue a comprehensive college-sports bill.)

In general, they will grant the schools wide-ranging use of athletes’ NIL and place some significant limitations on the athletes. This is based on a court filing by an entity that was seeking to submit a friend-of-the-court (or, a amicus) brief — a commentary on the case by an interested third party.

The filing, in late March, came from lawyers for Athletes.org, Inc., an organization that described itself in the filing as an entity that “exists to educate, organize and represent college athletes as their chosen players association to ensure that their interests are protected as college athletics continues to evolve.”

Supporting exhibits that included documents described as templates of NIL agreements written by the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences and from the universities of Arizona, Kansas and Minnesota.

In response to an open-records request from USA TODAY Sports after the filing, Minnesota provided the current version of its template “Memorandum of Understanding.” Among its provisions, in an “Annex” to the MOU, it says the athlete “grants the Institution the right to use and sublicense Athlete’s NIL to promote the Institution, the Conference, and/or the NCAA and/or such entities’ respective third party partners, sponsors, affiliates and sublicensees in any way …’’

In a provision that has taken on greater significance in the wake of Nico Iamaleava’s transfer from Tennessee to UCLA, the document attributed to Arizona includes as “optional” language the terms for a buyout that could be required of an athlete — or their subsequent school, on their behalf — if they transfers during the term of the agreement. Arizona did not respond to an inquiry in late March about this document.

How are schools paying for these deals?

All kinds of strategies are being pursued. Tennessee said it will be charging its football-ticket customers a “talent fee.” Virginia Tech is set to raise its student athletic fee for the 2025-26 school year by nearly $300. (It also hosted a concert in May by Metallica, whose song, “Enter Sandman,” long has been the Hokies’ pre-football-game entry soundtrack).

Minnesota is seeking a potential naming rights deal for its venerable basketball arena, currently known as Williams Arena. Virginia and other schools are re-visiting donation levels that will be required for season-ticket purchasing rights. Oklahoma’s athletics department has said it is laying off 5% of its full-time employees. Florida athletics director Scott Stricklin recently told longtime journalist Pat Dooley’s “Another Dooley Noted Podcast” that he asked all Gators coaches to cut their budgets by 5%.

Meanwhile, schools from power conferences also will be counting on conference revenue shares increasing even as the conferences and the NCAA pay the settlement damages over time and the SEC also repays the $350 million it borrowed and distributed to members in 2021 to help them through the COVID-19 pandemic.

What about college athletes who opt out of settlement?

There are several hundred athletes who have opted out of the settlement and some, at present, are pursuing separate damages claims, though not all under the same lawsuit.

This may not turn out to be a class action, but there are some recognizable names making cases that they individually are owed money. Among them:

Men’s basketball players: Kris Jenkins, Frank Mason III, Franz Wagner, Moritz Wagner, Hunter Dickinson, Duncan Robinson, Jamal Shead, Jaime Jaquez.

Football players: Jake Browning, Cam Rising, Alex Hornibrook, Dax Milne, Drew Lock, Bryce Love, Cade McNamara, Donovan Peoples-Jones, Jake Fromm, Nakobe Dean, Will Levis, Trace McSorley.

Women’s basketball players: Kathleen Doyle, Kathryn Westbeld, Sophie Cunningham.

Baseball players: Griffin Conine, Jordan Beck, Matt McLain, Shea Langeliers.

Link