Eric Blevins

Sen. Maria Cantwell on the SEC and Big Ten opposition: "What we did today is say we’re not going to let the most powerful and richest conferences dictate to the rest of America what’s going to happen to 500,000 athletes."

Jeremy Dent-Smith, Benny Gealer, Josiah Davis, Duke Brennan, Jordan Pope, Donovan Dent, Skyy Clark, Elijah Fisher, Parsa Fallah, Jaden Henley, Kendall Blue, Langston Reynolds, Guillermo Diaz Graham, Jorge Diaz Graham, Jevon Porter, Nick Townsend, Jaxon Kohler, Aidan Mahaney, Joshua Ward, Braden Carrington, KC Ibekwe, Corey Stephenson, Tayshawn Comer, Isaiah Carr and Charles Johnston are all named in the suit.

NEWS: A Hamilton County judge has granted a preliminary injunction to the players suing the NCAA in the state of Ohio in the age-based eligibility (5-in-5) case.

NEWS: An update in the age-based eligibility lawsuit in Hamilton County, OH Judge Wagner has denied the NCAA's motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The players in Ohio remain eligible, pending the NCAA's appeal.

3. Private Rights of Action This probably won't draw much attention but is really important. The bill allows athletes to sue under its own authority over disputes regarding various obligations the bill places on schools, conferences, and the NCAA. Notably, the bill prohibits NCAA/conference/school from forcing these disputes to arbitration. We've seen how important that can be in the NFL's litigation with Brian Flores and John Gruden. So this is a strong provision in the athletes' favor. Some really interesting possible lawsuits come to mind: -Group of athletes sue over use of their NIL in school promotion (sec. 101(a)). The bill opens the door to group licensing, as is done in pro sports by players' unions. -Could an athlete, or perhaps a reporter, sue a school for failing to report its expenses on sports? (sec. 104) -Say an athlete graduates and is frustrated with their job opportunities and income, and believes they were pressured into a degree program that is less demanding so they can focus on sports, which has caused them to make less money. Can the student make a lost income claim? (sec. 105). -a former athlete has long-term or catastrophic health problems arising from injuries while they played in college; if they have issues with medical insurance/coverage, could they sue the school to come out of pocket? (sec. 106) -The bill obligates schools over significant health & wellness issues like brain injury and heat illness, potentially fatal conditions. Can athletes or their families file suit over an athlete's serious injury or death from these, and does it establish a new standard of care for tort lawyers? (sec. 107) -Sedona Prince's viral video showing the inadequate facilities at the 2021 women's NCAA basketball tournament could now be grounds for a successful lawsuit! (sec. 109) And much, much more.

The buyout guidance in the NCAA's House Q&A jumped out. A court once told the NFL that its former Rozelle Rule violated antitrust law, and the Q&A's treatment of buyouts may draw similar criticism. The Q&A provides that if an athlete signs an NIL deal with School A containing a $100k buyout and then later transfers to School B, then School B must not only pay the buyout, but School B must also count that $100k against its overall rev-share cap for that year (the ~$20.5MM cap). It's this latter requirement that might draw scrutiny-- athletes might object that requiring schools to count buyouts against cap space (on top of paying the $) will cool the transfer market significantly. The NFL's Rozelle Rule once required a team acquiring a "free agent" to compensate the team who lost the player (and that compensation was up to the league commissioner's sole discretion). As a result, players rarely moved teams, and a court said this rule violated antitrust law. It’s an imperfect analogy but perhaps interesting. Not only that, but it also means that School B is spending NIL cap space dollars that are not going into the hands of any of School B's athletes (the buyout goes into School A's pocket). Another possible friction point. Perhaps something to keep an eye on.

Eleven athletes in four different sports filed in Colorado a class action lawsuit over the NCAA’s new 5-year, age-based eligibility rule.

Here’s the most recent one for anyone following along.