Film Room

Here’s where we’re at and where we’re going in the most pressing regulatory matters impacting college athletics:

Courts

House (revenue share/NIL):

Objections to the proposed settlement have been submitted to the Court, with a lot of attention on the replacement of scholarship limits with roster limits. The Court has heard from student-athletes and recruits who fear their ability to participate in college athletics may vanish. The change has caused angst at both ends of the membership—with big budget football programs troubled by fewer walk-on spots and lower budget institutions concerned by the impact of smaller rosters on enrollment. Notably (and somewhat surprisingly), relatively less of the focus has been on the proposed revenue share or changes to NIL.

We’ll keep you informed of any noteworthy new objections, which are due by the end of this month. Briefs on Final Approval are due March 3, 2025, with the hearing on Final Approval scheduled for Monday, April 7, 2025—which, coincidentally, is also the date of the men’s basketball championship game.

Johnson (employment):

First, a recap of five years of litigation in two sentences: plaintiff student-athletes alleged they are employees of their institutions and owed protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including minimum wage. The trial court denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the case and, this past summer, the appellate Third Circuit affirmed that denial but instructed the trial court and the parties that a different standard applies.

On November 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, aiming to plead a claim to the applicable standard as instructed by the Third Circuit. Defendants have not yet answered or moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint—their response is due February 7, 2025.

Johnson has some conceptual overlap with House (for example, both involve payments to student-athletes), but there is a significant amount of technical non-overlap. For example, while the proposed House settlement would permit institutions to provide payments to student-athletes at their discretion, Johnson—if plaintiffs are successful—would render minimum wages applicable to a wide range of student-athletes, with no institutional discretion. Such a ruling would send shockwaves through the membership. At first blush, compelled compensation would seem great for non-revenue sport student-athletes. But, it’d almost certainly reduce future participation opportunities as the economics of sponsoring those sports apply greater pressure on institutions. 

Of all the matters on which the membership has sought congressional assistance, the employment question may be the ripest and most pressing for federal intervention.

Schroeder v. University of Oregon (Title IX):

In addition to more traditional Title IX claims, plaintiffs in Schroeder allege that the University of Oregon’s NIL efforts provided its male student-athletes with greater NIL-related training, opportunities, and income than its female student-athletes. In July 2024, UO moved to dismiss and for judgment on various grounds, including by arguing that NIL is administered by outside entities not subject to Title IX. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers in November 2024. UO’s reply briefs are due January 31, 2025.

The Court’s view on the application of Title IX to NIL will be noteworthy, as courts and DC have yet to guide on the applicability of Title IX to NIL or House changes. In November, a congressional caucus wrote to the Department of Education, requesting its position (December 4, 2024 Press Release). To date, we haven’t seen a response. Keep an eye on the confirmation hearing for the nominated secretary of education, Linda McMahon, to get a sense of the new administration’s perspective on this issue.

NCAA

Next week, the NCAA’s annual convention will occur in Nashville. The docket of proposed new legislation is somewhat limited given the pending impact of House, which, if approved, will cause large chunks of the manual to be re-written.

DC

Public statements from elected officials suggest that an elusive federal law impacting college athletics is more likely than ever. Look for action to pick up in DC in late spring, especially if the House case receives Final Approval.