NIL

Tennessee’s Zakai Zeigler sues NCAA: What to know about the case that could alter college eligibility rules

Tennessee star guard Zakai Zeigler filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the NCAA seeking a fifth year of eligibility — a potentially groundbreaking case that could have wide-reaching effects across college athletics. Zeigler, a four-year college player, claims in the suit that he is “arbitrarily barred” from competing in the final year of his five-year eligibility […]

Published

1 month ago

May 21, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Zeigler, a four-year college player, claims in the suit that he is “arbitrarily barred” from competing in the final year of his five-year eligibility window while pursuing a graduate degree. His legal team argues that the redshirt system favors NCAA institutions over athletes in determining who qualifies for a fifth year of eligibility.

The case could impact not only Zeigler’s eligibility but also set a precedent for future athletes. While there is no direct precedent, the case may gain traction due to momentum in similar antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA.

For example, last year Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia won a case seeking an additional year of eligibility. He argued that the NCAA’s rule counting junior college participation toward overall eligibility violated antitrust laws by limiting his ability to profit from name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities. A judge granted Pavia an injunction, allowing him to play next season.

Zeigler’s case is unique in that he is the first non-junior college player to seek similar relief through the courts. He used four years of eligibility in four years — a common occurrence — but his lawsuit argues that his class, the class of 2021, is the first of the NIL era “to have their ability to engage in commerce truncated to four years.” Previous athletes in the NIL era received an extra year of “COVID” eligibility, which Zeigler’s legal team says was not extended to him and others in his class.

The case centers on the NCAA’s so-called “four-seasons” rule, which allows athletes to compete in four seasons within a five-year window. Zeigler’s attorneys argue the rule is overly restrictive and unlawfully limits athletes.

“We have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tennessee basketball standout Zakai Zeigler to allow him to play college basketball in the 2025-26 season,” Andy Cofer, an attorney with Garza Law Firm, wrote in a statement to CBS Sports on Wednesday. “The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA’s rule permitting only four seasons of competition within the five-year eligibility window is an unlawful restraint of trade under federal and state antitrust laws.

“We have requested a preliminary injunction to allow Zakai to compete in the upcoming season while pursuing his graduate studies,” Cofer said. “We look forward to a swift resolution of this matter so that Zakai can begin preparing for next season.”

Whether the case succeeds remains uncertain. After reviewing a copy of the lawsuit obtained by CBS Sports, analysts Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander discussed its potential implications on Wednesday’s Eye on College Basketball podcast.

CBS Sports also spoke with Philip Sheng, a partner at Venable LLP and former Division I athlete who represents clients in areas including trademarks, branding and NIL protection.

Power Four schools could face expulsion from conferences if they don’t sign binding contract, per report

Shehan Jeyarajah

Does the case have legs?

Sheng believes Zeigler and his representation have “a chance” at winning in the case.

“The lawyers did a great job of checking each of the boxes and using prior cases as a roadmap,” he told CBS Sports. “This case is unique from others though because Zeigler didn’t play JUCO or in another NCAA division before playing D1. He’s asking straight up for a fifth year of Division I eligibility. If I were the judge, the biggest question I’d be asking is: where does it stop? If one fifth year is allowed, do we then allow a sixth? Do we let athletes play throughout grad school? That’s the slippery slope argument the NCAA will certainly raise, and it’s probably the hardest issue to tackle, in my view.

“The other interesting wrinkle to this is that the state of Tennessee recently passed a law prohibiting NCAA restrictions on NIL compensation,” Sheng continued. “While the law does not directly relate to NCAA eligibility rules, it reflects a growing trend of state legislatures pushing back against NCAA authority. It’s not surprising that this case was filed immediately after passage of the Tennessee law. It will be interesting to see whether the law influences the judge’s decision.”

Eye on College Basketball’s take

CBS Sports’ Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander both talked at length about the chances of Zeigler’s suit succeeding and the potential implications of it on Wednesday’s show. Parrish and Norlander also wrote some extended thoughts below, with each expressing skepticism that it will be successful, but neither going as far as to predict it ends one specific way or another.

From Gary Parirish

Once upon a time, not too long ago, the NCAA had rules prohibiting student-athletes from taking money from boosters. But, eventually, the legality of that was challenged in court. And now student-athletes are, in many cases, accepting millions of dollars from boosters annually. Once upon a time, not too long ago, the NCAA had rules prohibiting student-athletes from playing four years at the Division I level if they had already competed at the junior college level. But, eventually, the legality of that was challenged in court. And now Diego Pavia will start at quarterback for Vanderbilt next season.

So does Zakai Zeigler seeking a fifth year of eligibility sound crazy?

Perhaps.

But everything I just noted above also used to sound crazy right up until some long-standing “rules” faced legal scrutiny, at which point judges consistently ruled against the NCAA. So, if you’re Zeigler, why not take this shot? Rather than ask why he thinks he should get a fifth year of eligibility, perhaps the question should be why the NCAA thinks it can prevent him from doing it. Or, more specifically, can the NCAA legally stop him from doing it — especially when stopping him would literally prevent him from accepting a job he wants for millions of dollars?

To be clear, I have no prediction.

Who knows where this might go?

But Zeigler’s options for next season appear to be either playing college basketball for millions of dollars or playing professional basketball for much less. Given that reality, if I were him, I’d probably take this same shot, see if I can get my case in front of a favorable judge and hope for the best. Because, don’t ever forget, regardless of how much you or anybody else might dislike the idea of players competing in college for more than four years, it doesn’t necessarily mean the NCAA’s rule will endure legal scrutiny. Either way, I guess, we’re about to find out.

From Matt Norlander

Quite the interesting story we’ve got bubbling up six weeks after the end of the season. If the question is, Do you think this lawsuit will prevail? My answer is no. I would guess that Zeigler is ultimately denied a fifth year of eligibility. He’s played 138 games. I’m not convinced I’m right, but I think it’s more likely than not to lose because Zeigler’s timing isn’t ideal, he hasn’t been restricted on capitalizing on his NIL rights in recent years and the NCAA’s precedent of the redshirt rule isn’t discriminatory (as far as I can tell) on his eligibility case.

Now, that said, I do think this is worth trying. The circumstances in college athletics in 2025 are vastly different than they were in 2020, 2015, 2010 and so on. Zeigler is arguing that some players get the financial benefit of a fifth year by means of having used a redshirt season. I’m surprised it took this long for a player to bring this type of case to the courts. Zeigler’s challenge is being mocked by some, but the foundational reasoning is at least worth exploring. If he won, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. And if that happens, I think this lawsuit will wind up being a major one in this respect: Zeigler being granted a fifth year would open the door to legislation for the NCAA to move toward five years of eligibility for all of its Division I athletes in the years ahead.

For expanded thoughts, listen to Wednesday’s Eye on College Basketball, where Parrish and Norlander talked for more than 20 minutes about this topic.

What Zeigler’s lawyers are arguing

The lawsuit filed Tuesday claims the Sherman Act establishes the precedent that Zeigler should prevail because “the NCAA’s Four-Seasons Rule constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade with no legitimate procompetitive justifiication in the post-Alston landscape.” Therefore, “the balance of hardships tilts decidedly in Zeigler’s favor,” the suit claims.

Attorney’s in the case must prove that the NCAA itself acknowledges that average NCAA athletes require more than four years to graduate, and they seem prepared to argue this point by stating the NCAA is aware of as much in three ways. From the lawsuit:

(i) its Progress Toward Degree requirement that students complete just 20% of their credit hours each year; (ii) the redshirt rule allowing a five- year participation model, and (iii) the NCAA’s celebrated six-year graduation rate metric.

The lawsuit also states the obvious ways in which Ziegler and other players in 2021, 2022, 2023 and so on will not benefit in ways classes before them could.

Let’s go to another excerpt from the lawsuit:

In the face of these facts, the NCAA itself has recently considered amending its bylaws to allow student-athletes to compete during all five years of the eligibility window, further undermining any claim that the current Four-Seasons Rule serves a procompetitive purpose. Further, since the COVID pandemic, NCAA athletes who began their careers in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, have been allowed to compete in all five years of their eligibility window. Zeigler’s class is the first during the NIL era to have their ability to engage in commerce truncated to four years.

Attorneys are seeking immediate injunction to allow Zeigler to begin preparing for next steps in either his college or professional playing career.

Zeigler’s worth in NIL the market

Within the lawsuit is a window into the monetary value placed on Zeigler, both past and present, as presentation for what precluding him from playing would restrict him from earning. The suit states he earned $150,000 in his first year and that grew each year, culminating with approximately $500,000 in NIL earnings in his fourth and final season.

Those numbers pale in comparison to the projected value he could be worth next season. More from the lawsuit:

Based on projections from Spyre Sports Group, the NIL collective associated with the University of Tennessee, Zeigler’s NIL valuation for the 2025-26 season ranges from $2 million and $4 million. This valuation reflects the market value of an upperclassman with a proven performance record and high visibility, especially in a high-profile conference like the SEC.

Zeigler is not a projected pick in this year’s NBA Draft despite his value and production at the college level, thus the added incentive for him to seek an additional year of eligibility. NBA players on two-way contracts, which may be more befitting his talent at the next level, earn half the rookie minimum — which amounts to just over $500,000.

NBA Draft decisions: Will the top 2025 transfer portal stars stay or go?

Adam Finkelstein

What a win for Zeigler could mean

While a win for Zeigler — a granting of an injunction to allow him to play next season — would set a precedent in similar cases, Sheng believes the judgement would mostly apply only to him in the case and not serve as a blanket ruling for others.

“If Zeigler is successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction, I expect the ruling will be specific to Zeigler and not apply to all athletes in general,” he said. “This will cause numerous copycat lawsuits to be filed while the NCAA appeals, and it will be up to each court to decide for each athlete in each lawsuit whether to grant an additional fifth year. It could become a mess.

“Interestingly, there have been rumors that the NCAA has been considering relaxing its four-year rule already to allow athletes to play a fifth year. If the rumors are true, a favorable ruling for Zeigler could accelerate those internal discussions and push the NCAA toward formalizing such a rule change.”

Players who could be affected

If granted an injunction in the case, Ziegler’s suit could open a can of worms for players in the 2021 class in a similar spot: those with immense value at the college level but not guaranteed to be high draft picks. As Sheng notes above, the ruling would likely apply only to Zeigler, but it could set off a series of other similar copycat suits. (And among those who would have good cases would be college stars like Kam Jones, Hunter Sallis, Ryan Nembhard and others.

Many of this year’s top available players either in the transfer portal market, high school market or international market are largely in place already having committed to either the NBA draft or to their respective schools. But a potential ruling in favor of the plaintiff would open up the marketplace to a wide range of potentially eligible players with big talents who would be highly sought.

Link

NIL

Athletes First makes bold move to enhance college football presence

Athletes First already has some of the more renowned players in the NFL, not to mention a top-shelf coaching clientele that includes the likes of Ryan Day and Brian Kelly at the collegiate level as well as Matt LeFleur on the NFL side. Now, the organization is making multiple moves to wade deeper into college […]

Published

1 hour ago

June 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Now, the organization is making multiple moves to wade deeper into college football.

Multiple sources tell FootballScoop that Athletes First has hired longtime top Notre Dame personnel executive Dave Peloquin as well as LSU’s Jordan Arcement to bolster their college sports division — specifically the company’s process of identifying potential prep and college players who project to potential top-tier college Name, Image and Likeness clients as well as NFL prospects.

The company has several notable NFL clients, including former Notre Dame All-America safety Kyle Hamilton as well as Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott.

In a role that sources told FootballScoop essentially as as the company’s general manager of the collegiate division, Peloquin instantly brings wtih him almost a quarter-century work from his time at Notre Dame — spanning from his student-work as an undergraduate assistant.

Starting in Bob Davie’s Notre Dame Fighting Irish program, Peloquin is one of the rarest individuals in all of college football — his value extending through five full-time Notre Dame football coaches beginning with Davie, transitioning to Ty Willingham, Charlies Weis, Brian Kelly and, finally, in multiple roles for Marcus Freeman.

He was both retained by all those Irish coaches and turned down numerous job opportunities to head up personnel departments for several other Power Conference programs, including in the Big Ten and SEC.

Arcement steadily grew in LSU’s recruiting department since his arrival in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2022, following work at the University of Virginia. Most recently, Arcement was LSU’s director of recruiting communications and external relations. He also has coached in the prep ranks and played collegiate football at Nicholls State (La.).

The moves from Athletes First signal the company’s willingness to try to be on the leading edge of ongoing changes in college athletics, specifically college football.

The House Settlement takes effect July 1, with Power Conference schools who opt in at the maximum amount able to share $20.5 million in revenue with student-athletes — almost overwhelmingly directing the majority of those funds to football players — annually and with built-in increases of 4% annually over the decade-long terms of the deal.

Additionally, NIL opportunities are still available for college athletes and increasingly more so for high school athletes. At the college level, as part of the House Settlement, all NIL deals valued at more than $600 must be ratified by third-party financial powerhouse Deloitte. Athletes First, like other powerful agencies in college and pro athletics, has long history in dealing with marketing arrangements — the types of which Deloitte is being asked to oversee in the House Settlement.

Link

NIL

$1.1 million QB’s NIL agency confirms upcoming event with NFL presence

Before he stepped onto campus in Boulder as a member of the Colorado Buffaloes, class of 2024 quarterback Julian Lewis signed a groundbreaking deal with Athletes First, a sports agency. At the time, a senior at Carrollton (Ga.) High School, Lewis was one of the first athletes in the state of Georgia to be represented […]

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Before he stepped onto campus in Boulder as a member of the Colorado Buffaloes, class of 2024 quarterback Julian Lewis signed a groundbreaking deal with Athletes First, a sports agency.

At the time, a senior at Carrollton (Ga.) High School, Lewis was one of the first athletes in the state of Georgia to be represented by an agency after the Georgia High School Association changed its guidelines to allow high school student-athletes the ability to participate in NIL without losing their eligibility.

The move sent shockwaves through the high school sports landscape. The Los Angeles-based Athletes First agency is highly accredited as they represent a large number of NFL players that include Aaron Rodgers, Justin Herbert, Justin Jefferson and numerous other NFL stars.

Lewis, a five-star prospect and consensually rated as one of the top QB recruits in the 2024 class, was committed to the USC Trojans at the time of his signing.

Fast forward over a year and a half later and he’s competing for the starting job with the Buffaloes as a true freshman. Lauded for his accuracy, poise and arm strength, Lewis is on a favorable path to joining his fellow agency-mates in the NFL.

Speaking to the accredited nature of Athletes First, they began “an exclusive, three-day summit of NFL offensive linemen in Las Vegas spotlighting the strength, personality, and performance of the league’s best players at these positions,” a social media post wrote.

The event, titled “Big & Beautiful presented by BTL,” will be hosted and led by retired eight-time Pro-Bowler Tyron Smith with the help of Detroit Lions offensive tackle Penei Sewell, Dallas Cowboys offensive lineman Tyler Smith and Washington Commanders center Tyler Biadasz.

BTL Aesthetics, the brand presenting the event, will include its services surrounding physical and mental recovery in the Athlete Recovery Lounge.

Lewis already has an NIL valuation of $1.1 million thanks in part to Athletes First — a number that will more than likely grow with time on the field and with the help of an experienced, highly-regarded agency with strong NFL ties.

Link

NIL

College basketball going to 32 regular season games, NCAA Tournament expansion likely – The Daily Hoosier

In the age of revenue sharing, college athletic departments need to find more ways to raise money. More games means more television revenue, and it seems we may be entering the era of more action on the courts and fields throughout the college landscape. One of the first signs of that came Wednesday, when CBS […]

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

In the age of revenue sharing, college athletic departments need to find more ways to raise money.

More games means more television revenue, and it seems we may be entering the era of more action on the courts and fields throughout the college landscape.

One of the first signs of that came Wednesday, when CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander reported the NCAA is expected to approve an expansion of the college basketball season from 31 to 32 games. Norlander says the move is being done to encourage even more high-profile nonconference games.

The change would go into effect with the 2026-27 season for men and women after the Division I Council passes the measure, per the report.

There has been a 31-game maximum since 2006-07. Teams are permitted to schedule 28 or 29 predetermined games, plus an allowance for multi-team events (MTEs) — such as holiday tournaments — where two or three additional games could be played.

The length of the season (early November to early March) is not expected to change, so more MTEs are likely coming.

According to the report, programs will not be required to play 32 games but will merely have the option to do so.

Norlander speculates in his report that this may just be the beginning of a movement towards a 34 or 35 game regular season over the next 10 years.

The longer seasons become, the less likely it is that any team will match Indiana’s perfect 32-0 season in 1976. That’s especially true if more challenging nonconference games become the norm.

Decision on NCAA Tournament expansion expected soon

The NCAA Tournament is likely to expand as well.

According to a report by ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the decision or whether to expand the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments for 2026 “is expected to come in the next few weeks.”

Thamel notes that the expansion would be to no more than 76 schools, which would be a maximum increase of eight new teams from the current format. He added that the NCAA remains engaged in talks with its media partners over any potential changes. Like the schedule expansion, the search for additional revenue is a factor. Tournament revenues are allocated back to the schools.

The last expansion to the NCAA Tournament field came in 2011. At that point, the field expanded from 64 teams to 68 teams.

The Daily Hoosier –“Where Indiana fans assemble when they’re not at Assembly”

Link

NIL

Stanford RHP Joey Volchko enters NCAA Transfer Portal with do-not-contact tag

Stanford right-handed pitcher Joey Volchko has entered the NCAA transfer portal with a “do not contact” tag, On3’s Pete Nakos has learned. He played the past two seasons for the Cardinal. Volchko was a preseason second team All-American ahead of the 2025 season and showed flashes of why. He appeared made 15 starts this past […]

Published

3 hours ago

June 25, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Stanford right-handed pitcher Joey Volchko has entered the NCAA transfer portal with a “do not contact” tag, On3’s Pete Nakos has learned. He played the past two seasons for the Cardinal.

Volchko was a preseason second team All-American ahead of the 2025 season and showed flashes of why. He appeared made 15 starts this past year to post a 6.01 ERA with 56 strikeouts to 34 walks across 70.1 innings pitched.

As a freshman, Volchko appeared in 20 games with six starts. He had 53 strikeouts in only 42.2 innings pitched that year as he went 2-1 with a 5.70 ERA.

Prior to Stanford, Volchko played high school baseball at Redwood in Visalia, California. He was a first team member of the 2023 recruiting class according to Baseball America, which also ranked him as the No. 37 overall prospect in the country.

Additionally, Volchko is the No. 15 prospect on Baseball America’s 2026 MLB Draft board. That in mind, he should make a major impact wherever he ends up transferring to.

Stanford is coming off a 27-25 finish this past season and missed out on NCAA Tournament action. The Cardinal now face an uphill battle heading into next season without one of the best pitchers on their roster.

The Transfer Portal for NCAA Baseball

College baseball has two separate windows for players to enter the Transfer Portal. The main window is open now. That’s starting in late May, while the NCAA Tournament is underway, and it remains open for a total of 45 days. The other window that college baseball has is open for 15 days in December.

Unlike sports like football, baseball has unique challenges relating to scholarship distribution that coaches need to manage and could impact players as they transfer. With the house settlement passing, roster sizes are about to shrink.

NCAA Division I baseball teams currently get between 11 and 12 scholarships despite the rosters being more than double that size. It means players receive partial scholarships. That means that coaches need to find a way to balance those scholarships with players already on the roster and who they’re bringing in.

According to On3’s Transfer Portal College Baseball Tracker, 3,179 players have enters the portal so far. The On3 Transfer Portal Instagram account and Twitter account are excellent resources to stay up to date with the latest moves.

Link

NIL

Prospects need to look at ‘long-term money’ instead of ‘short-term money’ when considering Texas

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas coach Steve Sarkisian said when it comes to recruiting in the age of NIL revenue sharing, Texas needs prospects to look at “long-term money” instead of “short-term money.” On the 3rd & Longhorn podcast with former Longhorn football players Jeremy Hills, Derrick Johnson, Alex Okafor, Fozzy Whittaker and Rod Babers as well […]

Published

3 hours ago

June 25, 2025

Your Sports Nation

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas coach Steve Sarkisian said when it comes to recruiting in the age of NIL revenue sharing, Texas needs prospects to look at “long-term money” instead of “short-term money.”

On the 3rd & Longhorn podcast with former Longhorn football players Jeremy Hills, Derrick Johnson, Alex Okafor, Fozzy Whittaker and Rod Babers as well as host Nick Shuley, Sarkisian said prospects might need to be willing to take a little less money up front to become a Longhorn for the “opportunity to create more opportunities” once they’re at Texas.

“Maybe we get a guy for a little bit less than another school’s offering, especially in this day and age,” Sarkisian said, referring to the House vs. NCAA settlement, which caps NIL revenue sharing between schools and their student-athletes at $20.5 million beginning July 1. “That’s gotta happen, because every Power Four school’s got, at minimum, the same amount of money [$20.5 million].

“So, if we’re trying to assemble a group of talented people, well, every talented person is going to require some money. If I don’t have as many talented people, I’m going to have more money to offer Johnny.

“Well, Johnny has to see the forest through the trees a little bit and say, ‘This is short-term money. I want to look at more of the long-term money. And Texas is going to provide me an opportunity to create more opportunities, whether it’s on the field, off the field, degree, NIL, brand-building, player development opportunity in the NFL.

“What does that look like for me? I’ve got a lot more lanes to go achieve that [at Texas] than just this spot over here that’s got one avenue.’

“We’ve got a lot of avenues for guys to come here and be really successful. So there’s a lot to it. But like I said, I think we have the best product in the US. I don’t think there’s another school that can say that. And, oh, by the way, Forbes magazine last year, wrote [Texas and Rice are] the new Ivy League.

“Name another school who’s getting compared to Harvard, Yale and Princeton, but on the flip side, is getting compared to Georgia, Ohio State and Alabama on the football field?”

Sarkisian gave a list of things Texas can uniquely offer a recruit in addition to NIL money, including back-to-back College Football Playoff semifinal appearances; having the most players selected in the NFL Draft the last two years (23), including six D-linemen and five running backs; reaching the SEC title game in Year 1 in the league; as well as three straight top-five recruiting classes, including the top-ranked class in 2025.

Link

NIL

Should NCAA be granted limited antitrust exemption in rev-share era?

In a world where many questions regarding collegiate student-athlete compensation have been answered, even greater concerns are looming. On Monday, Texas A&M Director of Athletics Trev Alberts spoke to the media regarding Texas A&M’s future financial plan in the wake of the NCAA v. House settlement. While the mysteries of athlete compensation have been solved, it […]

Published

3 hours ago

June 25, 2025

Your Sports Nation

In a world where many questions regarding collegiate student-athlete compensation have been answered, even greater concerns are looming.

On Monday, Texas A&M Director of Athletics Trev Alberts spoke to the media regarding Texas A&M’s future financial plan in the wake of the NCAA v. House settlement.

While the mysteries of athlete compensation have been solved, it is far from over, as the NCAA is still having to deal with a number of lawsuits, and NIL regulation is still a massive concern to athletic directors and coaches across the country. With NCAA president Charlie Baker pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption to protect college sports from a slew of lawsuits, Alberts offered a differing opinion.

“We don’t need broad antitrust exemptions,” the Aggie AD said. “We need a skinny NIL bill that will basically do the foundations of what we need to be able to not live in a litigious environment every day, where we’re playing defense. We need to be playing offense.”

Alberts is correct in acknowledging that college sports need reformation in the form of NIL legislation, but with lawsuits piling up and the future of college athletics becoming more unstable with each passing day, is an antitrust exemption needed in order to achieve litigation-free player compensation AND competitive balance?

“We don’t need broad antitrust exemptions. We need a skinny NIL bill that will basically do the foundations of what we need to be able to not live in a litigious environment every day, where we’re playing defense. We need to be playing offense.”

– Director of Athletics Trev Alberts

The reason the House settlement came around is that the NCAA couldn’t handle getting sued and losing lawsuits forever.

Alston v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, etc. These were almost all losing battles, and every dollar that the NCAA has to spend on legal fees is a dollar not being directly invested into collegiate sports. Despite the efforts to repair damages with this settlement, it is far from perfect. A large downside of this settlement, as it was explicitly said by Judge Claudia Wilken, is that it does not protect the NCAA from future lawsuits.

Aside from the Title IX lawsuits that are already on the table in just the first few weeks, there are a few more aspects of the settlement that people could challenge in court:

“Anti-competitive” nature of having a salary cap
NIL Go clearinghouse process and restrictions

This raises the question of how do we avoid these exhausting lawsuits while also ensuring competitive balance with NIL?

Right now, there seem to be two clear solutions:

The NCAA is granted Congressional protection (antitrust exemption)
The NCAA and its athletes come to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

Let’s break down what each of those pathways would entail.

Limited Antitrust Exemption
A limited antitrust exemption granted by Congress would allow the NCAA to operate in a capacity that shields it from lawsuits. An antitrust exemption would likely allow the NCAA to have ultimate say when it comes to player compensation, NIL compensation, transfer portal regulations and more. It would also allow the NCAA to preserve the concept of “amateurism” and not claim athletes as employees, which would have its benefits.

While this kind of congressional protection could allow the NCAA to set and enforce uniform guidelines to stabilize college athletics without the fear of lawsuits, there are downsides. It could potentially allow the NCAA and its schools to not comply fully with Title IX. This antitrust exemption would also likely take away any and all ability for athletes to negotiate for fair compensation and allow for the NCAA to operate behind a veil with no obligation to be transparent and accountable for its actions.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
Collective bargaining through employment is often seen as a middle ground to antitrust exemption that allows for athletes to have greater bargaining power. The NBA and NFL both have collective bargaining that dictates how revenue is split between owners and players, scheduling, drug policies, player safety and more. It is not exactly apples to apples when comparing these professional leagues to college athletics because not every sport generates revenue. Plus, you’re talking about just 1,700 players that play the same sport the way that the NFL is. You’re talking about over 540,000 student athletes across more than 20 sports (both men’s and women’s). This CBA would be much more complicated than anything the professional sports leagues have seen.

You’re talking about over 540,000 student athletes across more than 20 sports (both men’s and women’s). This CBA would be much more complicated than anything the professional sports leagues have seen.

– Author

However, if every athlete agrees on certain standards, you can distribute compensation fairly without a fear of lawsuits while also agreeing on a more stable middle ground in terms of NIL and transfer portal regulation that would stretch uniformly across every school in the league. There wouldn’t be a need for Congress to write new NIL laws that preempt state laws. The NCAA, with the help of athletes and other representatives, could agree on regulations that would be enforced by the NCAA and difficult to challenge in court because they would be a part of the CBA. Even though Deloitte’s NIL Go clearinghouse does some auditing and regulating now, the process and “fair market” evaluations are not necessarily protected from litigation. Also, it’s not certain that complete competitive balance would be achieved through this, as some schools may not be able to afford paying athletes as “employees” if they have to meet certain minimum wage standards. You’re already seeing Olympic sports get cut from many schools, but a CBA could have the potential to accelerate those deficits and prevent many collegiate athletes from participating in sports at all.

The question is, with the NCAA trying to avoid lawsuits while athletic directors and coaches are demanding clear, uniform and enforced NIL regulations… could a limited antitrust exemption or a CBA be the answer to all of this?

Either way, greater power would be granted to the NCAA (or some other entity) that would allow it to operate without fear of litigation.

It could be a good thing for college sports to have basic uniformity where everyone is happy with their compensation, as well as competitive balance.

However, can we trust the NCAA to operate efficiently, transparently and with the athletes’ best interest in mind?

They have had 119 years to prove that and have, thus far, failed.

Link