The most impactful dockets in college athletics had a busy week. Here’s a rundown of the action:
House
- Objectors ranging from household names like Chuck O’Bannon Jr. (nephew of NIL Mount Rushmore figure Ed) and Livvy Dunne to current student-athletes represented by leading Title IX practitioners filed numerous objections to the House settlement before Friday’s deadline, arguing that the settlement:
- violates Title IX, focusing on the lack of damages contemplated for female student-athletes
- violates antitrust law by restricting the amounts institutions may provide to student-athletes
- improperly limits third-party NIL
- improperly releases claims at issue in the Fontenot, Cornelio and Brantmeier cases
- improperly imposes roster limits
- provides insufficient notice to class members
- provides for damages that are: not tailored to a particular student-athlete’s actual NIL; too low for non-scholarship student-athletes who played; and too low for certain high-performing FBS football student-athletes
- What’s next: Over the past few months, many opinions have been offered on the House settlement. After Friday, it’s safe to say that any possible criticism has been brought to the Court’s attention. Defendant conferences, the NCAA and the plaintiffs have until March 3, 2025, to respond to the objections and move for final approval.
State of Tennessee v. NCAA (NIL injunction)
- Quick refresher: In February 2024, a Tennessee federal district court entered an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing certain of its rules limiting NIL activity, including in connection with dealings between recruits and third parties like Collectives. A few months later, parties in the House case submitted now-familiar settlement terms that include changes to the rules regarding NIL. Some of those changes overlap with the Tennessee injunction, while other terms arguably conflict with them.
- On Friday, January 31, 2025, reports emerged of a settlement in principle among the NCAA and plaintiff state attorneys general regarding the subject matter of the Tennessee injunction.
- What’s next: We’ll await the terms of the proposed Tennessee settlement to hit the Court’s docket. Look for whether Tennessee settlement specifics sync with the proposed NIL structure contemplated by the House settlement.
Schroeder v. UO (Title IX)
- On January 31, 2025, the University of Oregon submitted reply briefs in support of its motions to dismiss and for judgment in the Schroeder case. In response to plaintiffs’ argument that certain NIL arrangements must, but do not, comply with Title IX, UO argued, among other things, that media partner choices—which are beyond the scope of Title IX—drive publicity and account for NIL-dollar discrepancies. UO requested that the Court “find that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding NIL deals are specious and dismiss them from this case.”
- What’s next: Oral argument on these motions is calendared for later this month, February 26, 2025.
Johnson (employment)
- The Court ordered an agreement proposed by the parties to extend the time for defendants (the NCAA and certain member institutions) to respond to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The response date, which had been February 7, 2025, was moved to March 24, 2025. The Court’s order also set a briefing schedule for defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
- What’s next: As House and its potential approval attracts more attention over the coming months, keep in mind that Johnson, in which plaintiffs separately seek that a broad range of student-athletes are recognized as employees and afforded treatment accordingly (minimum wage, benefits, rights, etc.), still looms.
[View source.]
