Time really is a flat circle, huh?
The NCAA remains embroiled in settlement discussions around the House, Hubbard and Carter antitrust cases. Last week’s hearing with Judge Claudia Wilken was, in theory, a chance to get the framework agreement rubber-stamped.
That didn’t happen. Instead, the NCAA finds itself arguing in favor of the very thing that has it in this situation in the first place -- that pay-for-play is bad.
Rakesh Kilaru, an attorney representing the NCAA, addressed the court on Thursday in trying to establish why revenue sharing is not “pay for play” and that boosters offering athletes NIL deals is, in fact, that. Wilken visibly shook her head.
"If this House settlement goes through,” she contended, “you're explicitly paying for play [via revenue sharing].”
So where does that leave things? The NCAA basically has two options: Cave on its stance that it needs to regulate third-party NIL or find another way to do it that’s less limiting, or likely head to trial and take its chances.
Collective thinking
As you'd expect, NIL collectives aren't exactly fans of the NCAA’s stance regarding oversight and regulation.
“They should have solved the old problem, helped revenue sharing go into place, and then let the market take it from there,” Russell White, president of The Collective Association, told me. “Trying to throw everything into this -- that’s just their old beef with collectives, their ego coming into it of ‘How do we try to get this power back?’ ... All the ancillary stuff is, frankly, garbage.”
Wilken already ruled against the NCAA in the O’Bannon case just under a decade ago. That she might be swayed this go around feels, well, unlikely.
Kilaru, for his part, noted the NIL oversight piece to the settlement "is a central part of the deal, and without it, I'm not sure we have a settlement to submit."
Truly, nothing is ever simple in college sports.
