Film Room: House submissions, NIL Congressional hearing, and eligibility decisions

The parties aimed to contextualize varied objections from a diverse group of objectors—the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, walk-on student-athletes and many in between. To put in perspective the objections offered to the settlement, plaintiffs noted that over 100,000 student-athletes have taken actions that would entitle them to participate in an approved settlement. Similarly, the NCAA and defendant conferences pointed out that fewer than 0.1% of potential class members have objected. 

Here are just a few aspects of the submissions that are particularly noteworthy: 

• Plaintiffs defended the NCAA’s ability to “regulat[e] ‘faux’ NIL payments,” including by noting “this Court’s [earlier] finding that ‘limits on cash compensation unrelated to education do not, on this record, constitute anticompetitive conduct’”—an interesting observation by plaintiffs given the circumstances, to say the least! (Dkt. 717 at p.20).
• Plaintiffs previewed their expectation for third-party NIL enforcement, stating that student-athletes whose third-party NIL payments are identified as “improper” by a “neutral arbitrator” can “rescind the agreement or renegotiate the NIL arrangement” to avoid penalty. (Dkt. 717 at p.20). Defendant conferences and the NCAA, which will actually set the framework for third-party NIL enforcement, did not address this issue in their papers.
• Plaintiffs responded to an objection claiming that the settlement attempts to circumvent the injunction entered in the Tennessee v. NCAA matter by arguing that the settlement “does no such thing” and “says nothing about pre-enrollment communication whatsoever.” (Dkt. 717 at p.27). This statement highlights an often-overlooked aspect of House: As revolutionary as it is, House  dictates a change in the dealings among member institutions and student-athletes, not among member institutions and recruits. Assuming final approval, look for revisions to the NCAA manual and guidance from the NCAA on applicable standards for communications with recruits. 

As the parties point out in their briefs, the standard to be applied by the Court when considering approval is whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate—not whether the settlement is the best possible outcome for every class member (student-athlete). The matter is now fully before the Court, which is scheduled to hold argument on final approval in just over one month, on April 7, 2025. 

NIL Congressional Hearing

On Tuesday, March 4, 2025, federal lawmakers convened a hearing in which they heard from witnesses regarding NIL. It’s certainly not the first such hearing, but expectations for federal legislative action on NIL—and college athletics more broadly—are justifiably higher than ever. We’ll continue to keep an ear to the ground for DC activity that impacts the membership. 

Eligibility Challenges Update

Two separate courts recently rejected student-athlete challenges to the eligibility rules. On paper, the relief requested seemed similar to that which was granted in Pavia. Plaintiff student-athletes in both the Osuna and Goldstein cases sought to enjoin the application of rules that would count JUCO seasons against NCAA eligibility. In both Osuna and Goldstein, the courts declined to enter the requested preliminary injunction, and the student-athletes remain ineligible. The plaintiff in Goldstein has since asked that the presiding judge recuse himself because the judge apparently has served as an NCAA football game referee. His Honor set a hearing on that application for March 11, 2025. 

Consistent and predictable results on eligibility challenges remain elusive. We’ll continue to track related court activity.