How House v. NCAA could change the landscape of college sports
Since Name, Image and Likeness reform in college athletics took effect in July 2021, the next step in securing student-athletes' rights was to determine a revenue-sharing model that puts more money in the pockets of the players who generate immense revenue for their schools.
On Thursday, the motion hearing for House v. NCAA, an antitrust lawsuit brought on by three former NCAA Division I student-athletes, set the stage for a consequential case that could change the entire landscape of college athletics.
Judge Claudia Wilken held the hearing to consider the plaintiff's motion to certify class, which if successful, could potentially cost the NCAA billions of dollars in backpay to roughly 15,000 student-athletes that have competed since 2016. A trial is currently scheduled for Jan. 2025, and Wilken raised the possibility of the trial date being moved.
The case could potentially eliminate all remaining NCAA rules that limit student-athletes' NIL activity, such as the one that prevents student-athletes from being compensated for their athletic performance.
It should also be noted that Judge Wilken has ruled against the NCAA before, as she did in O'Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA.
Here are the basics of the antitrust case:
WHAT ARE THE PLAINTIFFS SEEKING?
The plaintiffs — former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver and TCU basketball player Sedona Prince — are seeking backpay for lost NIL revenues including broadcast, video game and third-party deals that took place prior to June 15, 2016, almost five years before the current NIL rules. More importantly, the plaintiffs requested class certification to proceed on behalf of around 15,000 college athletes who weren't able to take advantage of NIL from 2016 to the present.
The basis of the plaintiffs claims relies on the Sherman Antitrust Act, in which the three former student-athletes claim the NCAA has conspired to restrain their ability to earn money from NIL. The plaintiffs are arguing for three classes — one for football and men's basketball, one for women's basketball and one for all other sports.
In total, the plaintiffs are seeking more than $1.4 billion in damages — $1.3 billion to male student-athletes and $50 million for female student-athletes.
In regard to potential Title IX complications brought by the NCAA, the plaintiffs are arguing that Title IX does not apply to college athletic conferences, thus allowing the conferences to share the revenue rather than the schools themselves.
WHAT IS THE NCAA ARGUING?
The NCAA is arguing against class certification, stating that there are "substantial differences" in athletes' NIL worth, including individual and team performance and market demand. Additionally, the NCAA requested that Judge Wilken dismiss a report from media consultant Ed Desser, who claimed an athlete's use of NIL is worth 10% of the broadcast revenue each conference generates through TV contracts. University of San Francisco sports management professor Dan Rascher filed a follow-up report that said each conference would allocate that portion of revenue to its football and men's and women's basketball players.
Judge Wilken did not in fact dismiss the reports Thursday, as she said she was inclined to accept the economic and TV experts' reports from the plaintiffs.
The NCAA countered, stating that the proposal would lead to 96% of the allocation going to male athletes and 4% to female athletes, causing a violation of Title IX rules. Judge Wilken was less inclined to accept that part of the testimony.
The NCAA further argued that the damage class cannot be certified because it's impossible to know who all of the purportedly affected student-athletes were, and that there's no way to know when an athlete who decided to stay in school would have occupied a roster spot that would've went to someone else.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
If the plaintiffs are granted class certification, the NCAA could face financial damages totaling more than $4 billion in backpay to thousands of former student-athletes. Even so, the plaintiffs still seek a slice of the multi-billion dollar broadcast revenue pie that the NCAA might be forced to share.
