NCAA Settlement: What does it mean for Oklahoma student athletes?

In today's Hot Seat, Scott Mitchell welcomes Kelli Masters, a sports agent and attorney, to discuss the recent changes in college sports, specifically regarding athlete compensation and NCAA policy changes. The conversation references the landmark 1983 University of Oklahoma Board of Regents lawsuit against the NCAA, which set the stage for televised college sports and revenue growth.

Follow along for the key takeaways, or watch the full interview above.

NCAA, NIL, and Legal Changes

1. The NCAA historically enforced strict amateurism rules, limiting athlete compensation and penalizing schools and athletes for violations.
2. In 2021, state-level laws began allowing college athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), challenging the NCAA’s amateurism model and leading to significant regulatory changes.
3. The NCAA responded by issuing guidelines permitting NIL activities but attempted to restrict their use in recruiting, a rule widely seen as ineffective.

House v. NCAA Settlement

1. The House v. NCAA federal case was recently settled, marking a major shift in college sports compensation.

Key outcomes of the settlement:

1. Schools can now directly pay athletes, with each school assigned a "salary cap" of around $20 million
2. A $2.8 billion fund will be distributed retroactively to athletes from 2016–2021 over the next ten years.
3. A Collegiate Sports Commission and a Deloitte-managed clearinghouse will oversee enforcement and contract review, but concerns remain about the effectiveness and fairness of these mechanisms.

Unanswered Questions and Ongoing Issues

1. The settlement leaves many questions unresolved, including:
2. Which athletes qualify for payment and what happens if they transfer schools.
3. Lack of free agency rules, arbitration provisions, and clear contract standards.
4. The ongoing existence of NIL deals alongside direct school payments, creating a complex compensation landscape.
5. There are concerns about enforcement, potential for litigation, and the need for further legislation to clarify athlete rights and obligations.

Title IX and Gender Equity Concerns

1. Title IX, which mandates equal opportunities for male and female athletes, complicates revenue sharing since not all women’s sports are included in the new payment structures.
2. There are lawsuits and anticipated challenges regarding how Title IX will interact with the House settlement and revenue sharing.

Athlete Status: Employee vs. Student

1. There is a growing recognition that college athletes function as employees due to the control schools exert over their time and activities.
2. If athletes are classified as employees, this could lead to collective bargaining, unionization, and eligibility for benefits like workers’ compensation.
3. The distinction between employee and independent contractor status is expected to be addressed at the federal legislative level.

Practical and Ethical Challenges

1. Young athletes face new responsibilities, including financial management and tax obligations, often without adequate support or education.
2. The influx of money increases risks of exploitation by unscrupulous agents and financial advisors.
3. The media and policymakers are seen as lagging behind in understanding and addressing these rapid changes in college sports.

Summary

1. The recent legal and policy shifts have fundamentally changed the landscape of college athletics, moving away from the traditional amateurism model toward a system of direct compensation and NIL rights.
2. Despite the House v. NCAA settlement, the environment remains uncertain and "Wild West"-like, with many legal, ethical, and practical issues still to be resolved.