Less than two weeks after terms of a multibillion-dollar college sports settlement went into effect, friction erupted over the definition of a “valid business purpose” that collectives making name, image and likeness payments to players are supposed to have.

The new College Sports Commission sent a letter to athletic directors last week saying it was rejecting deals in which players were receiving money from collectives that were created solely to pay them and don’t provide goods or services to the general public for profit.

A lead attorney for the players responded by saying those instructions went against settlement terms and asking the CSC to rescind the guidance.

“This process is undermined when the CSC goes off the reservation and issues directions to the schools that are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms,” attorney Jeffrey Kessler wrote to NCAA outside counsel Rakesh Kilaru in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Yahoo Sports first reported details of the letter, in which Kessler threatens to take the issue to a judge assigned with resolving disputes involved in the settlement.

Kessler told the AP that his firm was not commenting on the contents of the letter, and Kilaru did not immediately respond to the AP’s request for comment.

Yahoo quoted a CSC spokesman as saying the parties are working to resolve differences and that “the guidance issued by the College Sports Commission … is entirely consistent with the House settlement and the rules that have been agreed upon with class counsel.”

When NIL payments became allowed in 2021, boosters formed so-called collectives that were closely tied to universities to work out contracts with the players, who still weren’t allowed to be paid directly by the schools.

Terms of the House settlement allow schools to make the payments now but keep the idea of outside payments from collectives, which have to be approved by the CSC if they are worth $600 or more.

The CSC, in its letter last week, explained that if a collective reaches a deal, for instance, for an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, that collective does not have a “valid business purpose” because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.

Another example of a disallowed deal was one an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because, the CSC guidance said, the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose.”

Kessler’s letter notes that the “valid business purpose” rule was designed to ensure athletes were not simply being paid to play, and did not prohibit NIL collectives from paying athletes for the type of deals described above.

To prevent those payments “would be to create a new prohibition on payments by a NIL collective that is not provided for or contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, causing injury to the class members who should be free to receive those payments,” Kessler wrote.

AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Last Updated on July 15, 2025

The spectacular thing about online sports betting is that it casts a much wider net than land-based bookies. The reason online sportsbooks can afford to do something like that is because they have fans from all over the world. That means there is a much larger diversity of interests than land-based shops, that must cater to their local customers.

Of course, online sportsbooks do cover all of the most popular sports you can imagine. Football and basketball are staples at the Novibet online betting platform. But, for those who wish to delve just a bit deeper, there are plenty of other options to choose from. In this article, we are focusing on some lesser-known sports that get attention at online sportsbooks.

Darts

Darts is at the top of the list. Most people may not even realize that there is a worldwide darts competition. Professional darts players may have success in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. But, most of the rest of the world is unaware that professional darts even exists. Well, online sportsbooks are starting to change that.

By covering the latest darts competitions, bookmakers have elevated the popularity of the sport, almost single-handedly. Today, professional darts is more popular than it has ever been before. The sport is growing a large following in the United States, which is good because the USA has one of the largest online sports betting markets in the world.

Water Polo

Water sports are often overlooked. Most people are familiar with competitive swimming, of course. But, water polo gets a raw deal in terms of popularity. Which is a shame, because the sport can get quite exciting. It has a pretty large following in Germany, Austria, Croatia, and Serbia. But, other markets just don’t seem to have much interest in it.

Yet, water polo has popped off at online sportsbooks. The coverage that water polo gets online is pretty intense, considering its popularity outside of betting. Like with darts, the attention the sport receives at online sportsbooks helps get more people interested in the games themselves. Recently, water polo’s popularity has grown by a pretty large margin. Who knows, maybe in ten years it will rival volleyball.

eSports

It is tough to include something like eSports on this list. For one, eSports is the fastest-growing market in the world of sports betting. Not only that, but the popularity of the phenomenon is greater now than ever before. Yet, it is hard to say that the average person follows eSports, or even knows what the word may refer to. For those who don’t know, eSports is another word for competitive gaming.

The eSports betting market has exceeded all expectations at online sportsbooks. Games like League of Legends and Fortnite are especially successful. However, even lesser-known games are getting the attention of the big-name titles. It seems gamers are very invested in betting on their hobby. There are even talks of legitimizing eSports as a sport proper. Whether that happens any time soon remains to be seen. What is certain is that eSports have a long future in sports betting.

“I wasn’t even good enough to get free stuff” – Charles Barkley recalls his underappreciated recruitment compared to today’s NIL deals. originally appeared on Basketball Network.

In the recent rise of NIL deals in the new era of college sports, Charles Barkley’s recruitment story shows the difference between college athletes now and then.

Advertisement

When Barkley, one of the most iconic basketball figures of all time, entered college at Auburn, he wasn’t heavily recruited; in fact, he had only three options: UAB, Alabama and Auburn. He chose the latter because of the immediate impact he could have there, not for the money, unlike the college athletes nowadays.

“I wasn’t even good enough to get free stuff,” recalled Chuck during an interview with Graham Bensinger on YouTube.

Barkley’s experiences might shock the newer generations who have been around the latest college sports landscape. The idea was that players were viewed as athletes who were there to receive a free college education rather than making connections and gaining financial opportunities through their NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals.

NIL deals

A new age of recruitment is upon us. NIL deals have transformed the recruiting process mainly for Division I college athletes. However, top prospects who are both standout players and athletes earn more money, depending on their marketability.

Advertisement

High school prospect A.J. Dybantsa, the No. 1 overall high school recruit according to ESPN’s 100 rankings and No. 1 overall pick in the 2026 NBA Mock Draft, has an NIL valuation north of $4 million, making him the top earner in this upcoming NCAA season. Something that old-school legends like Barkley could never have imagined while in college.

While earning that kind of money seems great, it’s a double-edged sword. Athletes nowadays have to perform on the court while also maintaining their brand to continue securing this kind of money, a pressure that players like Barkley didn’t face; their sole focus was on their education and on-court performances.

Related: “He was a son of a b—-. To put it mildly…” – Dominique Wilkins thinks Kawhi Leonard wouldn’t stand a chance guarding prime Larry Bird

The change in college sports

Although the new system clearly has benefits, fans will argue that the NCAA’s business-first mentality has resulted in a loss of purity for the game.

Advertisement

When Barkley was in college, athletes weren’t even thinking about personal branding or financial opportunities; they weren’t even thinking about the NBA. Their main goal was to earn a degree and get a chance to play in the best league in the world.

“I wasn’t even thinking about the NBA, I was just thinking about going to college for free,” he emphasized about his sole purpose for college ball.

A significant shift from today’s view, where athletes with a large social media following coming out of high school often don’t even need to be exceptionally talented to have NIL deals waiting for them.

For example, Mikey Williams, who has a massive social media following and was the No. 34 overall prospect in the 2023 class, has generated a $2.3 million NIL valuation despite currently attending Sacramento State University. This money was unimaginable to the college players when Barkley played.

Advertisement

Many fans find it difficult to grasp the evolution of college basketball since the days of all-time greats like Chuckster. And with NIL deals gaining traction, the transformation is still underway, shaping a future that’s bound to keep progressing.

The question is, will it affect the NBA and overseas basketball, with players declining the option to go pro and instead staying in college to cash in on their hefty deals?

Related: “Because making all this money on these kids and not educating them is a travesty” – When Charles Barkley slammed the NCAA’s $11B industry for failing student-athletes

This story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Jul 15, 2025, where it first appeared.

Associated Press

Saint Peter’s, Fairleigh Dickinson and Maryland-Baltimore County — three schools that have taken March Madness by storm at various points in the past decade — have declined to opt in to college sports’ new revenue sharing model.

The newly formed College Sports Commission, which oversees revenue sharing following the House settlement, posted a list of schools that have opted into revenue sharing. All members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference are participating, and other Division I schools had to opt in or out by June 30.

Saint Peter’s, which reached the men’s Elite Eight as a No. 15 seed in 2022, did not opt in. Iona and Manhattan, who play with Saint Peter’s in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, didn’t either.

UMBC and Fairleigh Dickinson, the only two teams to pull off a 16-over-1 upset in the men’s basketball tournament, opted out as well. Fairleigh Dickinson is part of the Northeast Conference, which had just one school — Long Island University — opt in.

“It’s expensive to opt in,” Idaho athletic director Terry Gawlik told the Lewiston Tribune. “We don’t have that kind of money to pay for that.”

Idaho is one of several Big Sky schools opting out.

In addition to the costs of sharing revenue directly with athletes, Title IX concerns and scholarship limitations are among the reasons a school might opt out.

“Revenue sharing and scholarship limits are really one piece, but the big thing for us is the roster limitation,” Central Arkansas athletic director Matt Whiting told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette while explaining his school’s decision to opt out.

Military rules prevent Navy, Air Force, and Army from compensating athletes through name, image and likeness deals, but aside from them, the Football Bowl Subdivision leagues have full participation in the settlement.

Other conferences with all full members opting in included the Atlantic 10, Big East, Coastal Athletic, Horizon, Missouri Valley, Southwestern Athletic, Western Athletic and West Coast. The Big West had everyone opt in except Cal Poly and UC Davis, which play football in the Big Sky.

Nebraska-Omaha is the lone full member of the Summit League to opt out, and Tennessee State is the only full Ohio Valley member to do so.

The Ivy League said in January that its eight schools — which do not award athletic scholarships — would not participate. The Patriot League didn’t have any full members opt in either, although Fordham, Georgetown and Richmond — associate members who play football in that conference — did.

Of the 68 schools that made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament last year, only American, Nebraska-Omaha, Saint Francis and Yale have opted out of revenue sharing. Five schools that made the women’s tournament opted out: Columbia, Fairleigh Dickinson, Harvard, Lehigh and Princeton.

Commissioners of historically Black conferences have expressed concern that the push to make athletes school employees could potentially destroy athletic programs — but the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and Southwestern Athletic Conference had everyone opt in except North Carolina Central.

Some schools that don’t play Division I football or basketball opted in — such as Johns Hopkins with its storied lacrosse program. Augusta University, which is located in the same town as the Masters and perhaps unsurprisingly competes in Division I in golf, was on the list of teams opting in.

___

AP sports: https://apnews.com/sports

For anyone who thought an unprecedented $2.8 billion settlement agreement actually resolved one of the many murky issues of student-athlete compensation in college athletics —not so fast. On June 6, federal Judge Claudia Wilken officially approved the class action antitrust lawsuit House v. NCAA. The landmark settlement turned the amateurism model of athletics in higher education on its head and is set to provide back pay to Division I student-athletes for name, image, and likeness (NIL) earnings. While it took five years of litigation to get approval of the settlement, it took just five days for a group of plaintiffs to appeal it.

NCAA NIL Settlement in House v. NCAA Faces Immediate Title IX Challenge

On June 11, a group of female student-athlete plaintiffs in House noticed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals registering their objection to the back-pay provision of the final settlement. Although no appellate briefs have been filed yet, these female student-athletes are expected to assert that the settlement’s terms for paying out back-pay damages violates the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title IX because the settlement is set to overwhelmingly pay out most of the back-pay damages to male athletes.

Allegations of Unequal NIL Compensation Based on Gender

More specifically, the settlement’s formula for paying out back-pay damages has allocated 75% of the fund to men’s football players and 15% to men’s basketball players in the five premiere athletic conferences in NCAA Division I, with only 5% of the damages fund allocated to women’s basketball players and the remaining 5% to all other student-athletes.

Proponents of this formula argue that it tracks the gross revenue averages of college sports, and accordingly football players should get the biggest piece of the pie. Opponents, including the appealing female student-athletes, argue that the back-pay damages formula in the agreement will pay male athletes 90% more than female athletes, which they assert is an unlawful disparity based on gender.

The anticipated argument is, essentially, that if the schools and/or the NCAA on behalf of schools had allocated 90% of their revenue to the male athletes during the plaintiffs’ college athletic careers, then they clearly would have violated Title IX’s requirement to provide “substantially proportionate” financial assistance to male and female student-athletes. In short, the schools would not have met their obligation to ensure equitable opportunities for both men’s and women’s sports programs.

Judge Wilken’s view in approving the settlement was that the litigation was an antitrust case, not a Title IX case, and the Title IX compliance, unionization, and collective bargaining issues are outside the scope of the House litigation. She nonetheless left the door open to a Title IX challenge on appeal, indicating that future lawsuits can be filed if the way that schools compensate athletes violates Title IX. Despite the appeal putting the brakes on the payout of back-pay damages under the settlement, the other terms of the agreement were left uninterrupted and went into effect on July 1. This includes roster limits, scholarship limits, and the rules regarding direct pay and revenue-sharing with student-athletes.

What’s Next: Ninth Circuit to Weigh Title IX and NIL Backpay

The Ninth Circuit now has an opportunity to weigh in on whether Title IX does have a bearing on these back-pay damages. It may simply decide that Judge Wilken did or did not abuse her discretion in approving the settlement. Or it could take on the larger controversial and contested issue: How does Title IX apply to NIL payments and revenue sharing with student-athletes, and does the revenue-sharing model set forth under the settlement agreement terms for future compensation for student-athletes run afoul of Title IX?

Regardless of how far-reaching the Ninth Circuit’s opinion ultimately goes in the House appeal this is not the last Title IX challenge we will see to the allocation of direct payments and revenue sharing funds to student-athletes in the near future.

The federal government’s current position on the issue of direct pay and revenue sharing with regard to Title IX does not currently provide decisive direction to courts that may grapple with this issue in the future. The U.S. Department of Education guidance under the Biden administration indicated payments to student-athletes would have been considered “athletic financial assistance,” which requires proportional allocation among male and female athletes at a given institution. The Trump administration rescinded that guidance in February, and in the current landscape, it is unclear whether compensating student-athletes will be viewed by the Office of Civil Rights—the agency division tasked with Title IX enforcement—as subject to Title IX.

Division I schools have been mulling over their options since the proposed settlement agreement was under review. However, the thorny issues of direct pay to student-athletes, equitable sports programming, and NIL deals are not reserved exclusively for D-1 schools and their athletic departments—any college or university with an athletic program should closely track the developments in federal and state law in this space.

MOSCOW, Idaho – Idaho Vandal soccer plays host to Washington State, Boise State, South Dakota, and UTEP in non-conference play while traveling to Washington, Grand Canyon, Bakersfield and making an East Coast swing to face UMass Lowell and Stonehill College.
 
In Big Sky play, Idaho welcomes Montana, Eastern Washington, Northern Colorado and Northern Arizona to the dome while traveling to Idaho State, Weber State, Sacramento State and Portland State.
 
The schedule is among the best in program history and includes some of the Northwest’s top programs.

Idaho opens the season with a pair of exhibition games in early August. The Vandals welcome in West Coast Conference team Gonzaga on Monday, Aug. 4 before traveling to Oregon to play the Big Ten member Ducks on Friday, Aug. 8.

 

The regular season opens in the dome with a contest against UC Riverside on Aug. 14 before closing out the week against Big Ten Washington on Sunday, Aug. 17 in Seattle.

 

The Vandals have a Northeast swing with games against UMass Lowell on Aug. 21 before playing Stonehill College (Mass.) on Aug. 23.

 

Idaho hosts Washington State on Aug. 28, South Dakota on Aug. 31 and UTEP on Sept. 4 before heading road to play at Grand Canyon on Sept. 11 and CSU Bakersfield on Sept. 14.

 

The Vandals host Boise State on Sept. 18 at 7 p.m. to close out non-conference play.

 

Idaho hits the road for games against Idaho State (Sept. 25), Weber State (Sept. 28) and Sacramento State (Oct. 2) to open Big Sky Conference action.

 

Montana comes to the dome on Oct. 5 followed by Eastern Washington on Oct. 12.

 

The Vandals’ final road game will be at Portland State on Oct. 19 before closing the season with home games against Northern Colorado (Oct. 24) and Northern Arizona (Oct. 26).

 

Idaho has played in the Big Sky Championship match each of the last three seasons, winning the title in 2023.

 

Season tickets are on sale now at GoVandals.com/Tickets.