Film Room: House and DC activity

The settlement’s institutional opt-in date of March 1, 2025, is just days away. Last week, a set of objectors noted the potential asymmetry in requesting that institutions opt in prior to an approved settlement. The court hasn’t acted on the request, and the March 1 opt-in date stands as of this post. The parties’—plaintiffs, the NCAA and defendant conferences—motion for final approval and response to objections is due this Monday, March 3. 

Separately, Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports provided another insightful report regarding the potential administration of the NIL Clearinghouse. According to Dellenger, “Deloitte is using thousands of previously struck NIL deals of college and NFL players in developing a ‘compensation range’ to determine if deals are authentic,” and “Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day.” Dellenger also reported that NIL Clearinghouse decision disputes will be heard via expedited arbitration, a concept noted in the settlement. 

How will the NIL Clearinghouse account for obvious differences between pro football sponsorship deals and college football sponsorship deals, which are often more closely tied to an institution’s—i.e., the team’s—performance? Pro football sponsorships—think national insurance company X—are often tethered to a team only loosely, if at all. By contrast, strong college football team performance often directly aids local and other institutionally specific sponsors. Relatedly, and as we previously asked, how does the NIL Clearinghouse disentangle a student-athlete’s on-field ability from the value of that student-athlete’s name, image and likeness? 

Institutions, which of course wish smooth sailing for their student-athletes, have a role to play in streamlining third-party NIL. 

Case law regarding what entails “fair market value” varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Credible experts testifying on behalf of adverse parties routinely offer varying opinions on fair market value, which can be the subject matter of monthslong trials following mountains of discovery—I should know (see Ferolito v. AriZona Beverages USA, LLC). 

Student-athletes and third parties—i.e., Collectives and boosters—that consider case law guiding on the fair market value analysis in their jurisdictions will finalize deals that are better positioned to withstand scrutiny. Recruits and student-athletes will take note of those institutions that effectively streamline this process for their student-athletes. Such institutions and their sport programs will enjoy a compliant advantage in the regulated but uncapped frontier of third-party NIL. 

DC

The Department of Education announced that its Office for Civil Rights has initiated a Title IX investigation of the Maine Department of Education. President Trump’s February 5 executive order titled Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports directed executive agencies to take “all appropriate action to protect all-female athletic opportunities” and stipulated that the United States will “rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities” pursuant to Title IX. Check out the firm’s Executive Order and Policy Tracker to stay up to speed on the many policy changes impacting campus.