Thane Watkins

@COBIVISION If that's true, how did MSU send two players to the NFL? MSU's issue isn’t a lack of talent; it’s a shortage of competent coaches and discipline.

@trigonis30 @tarkaniang If that was the case then they wouldn’t be subject to anti trust and looking for Congress to pass legislation that exempts them. But I have an easy fix: let the kids play where they want for up to 5 seasons, let them make as much NIL as they want, and the schools pay them nothing

@trigonis30 It acts on behalf of multiple state schools. And even if it were private, it still has to treat its athletes equitably. They could simply let class of 2022 have the year, but they want to flex.

@trigonis30 The players have the legal right to be treated equally. Not a difficult concept. And the NCAA is not a private group. They represent STATE schools.

@trigonis30 It’s literally a rule that the NCAA has in place now that you get 5 years to play 5 seasons starting from 19-24 years old. These athletes challenging the fact that they’ve been excluding are only requesting to have a rule they fit into apply to them. Not a hard concept to grasp

@trigonis30 They have the right to make rules. However, when they apply those rules unfairly, and that unfairness limits someones ability to make money, that person who was arbitrarily excluded has a right to sue.

Jeff Goodman’s tweets from yesterday questioning the contingency fee arrangement in our representation of college basketball players seeking a 5th year of eligibility reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how these matters are litigated and funded. I finally have a small break in the action, so let's talk about it. We are representing players from the high school class of 2022 who exhausted their eligibility under the prior rules. The NCAA’s new age-based model permits 5 years of competition but arbitrarily excludes this class, even as these athletes competed against peers who received extra eligibility through prior waivers. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in state courts, and early injunctive relief has already been obtained for some plaintiffs. These cases proceed on a contingency fee basis. Our firm and co-counsel receive nothing if the athletes do not prevail. We advance litigation costs. The risk allocation is the core of contingency representation. It is the reason such arrangements exist and why they are common in plaintiff-side work against well-resourced institutions (the NCAA spent $63.5 million in legal fees during the fiscal year ending Aug 2025, as recently reported by @DanielLibit). The athletes we represent generally lack the resources to retain counsel on an hourly basis while pursuing one additional season of competition and the associated NIL opportunities. The fee is 15% of any recovery obtained. Where a player’s NIL earnings exceed a defined threshold as a result of the additional eligibility, the percentage charged decreases below 15%. This structure was presented to the athletes and their families in plain terms. They reviewed it, asked questions, and agreed to the engagement. There has been no pushback. The arrangement was designed to align incentives and ensure that those who benefit most from a successful outcome still retain the overwhelming majority of the value. In the legal profession, contingency fees in complex plaintiff litigation routinely begin at 30% or more, particularly where counsel bears the full financial risk and must front substantial expenses over an extended period. 15% or less is modest by any professional standard, as anyone who is a lawyer or has ever hired a lawyer on a contingency basis knows well. The suggestion that it is high for this work ignores both prevailing practice and the specific economics here. Many of these players will generate only modest additional NIL income even with a successful outcome. The fee must be evaluated against that reality and not in the abstract. Goodman's criticism and his retweet of an ambulance intended to imply that I am an ambulance chaser overlooked the practical alternative. Without counsel willing to accept these cases on accessible terms, the claims would not be brought. The athletes would have no meaningful recourse against the NCAA’s exclusion, and the inconsistency in the eligibility rules would stand. Zealous representation on contingency is what makes the legal process available to young athletes (I won't refer to them as "kids" as Goodman does) who would otherwise be priced out of challenging arbitrary administrative decisions that directly affect their careers and earning potential. I have spent my career, and long before July 1, 2021, advocating for athlete rights through legislation, direct representation, and public commentary. This work is a continuation of that effort. The goal is to secure for these players the opportunities the new policy was meant to create but from which they were unfairly carved out. The early court rulings demonstrate that the claims have merit and that litigation is an effective path to relief. Public commentary that questions reasonable, client-approved fee structures without full context does little to advance the interests of the athletes themselves, but may drive engagement for short-sighted commentators. TLDR: My focus remains squarely on my clients and on vindicating their rights under the rules as they now exist. We will continue to structure engagements in ways that remove financial barriers to representation while maintaining the highest standards of professional responsibility. The athletes deserve nothing less.