Revenue Sharing (up to $22M/School/Year) & improved Medical Care: Kevin Warren met w/ Football Players in July 2022 to discuss these Issues
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
It looks like, because of Title IX, that a lot of male & female athletes would get a cut of the $15M-$20M but the vast majority of the revenue sharing would be directed towards football and men's basketball.
When it comes to female sports, here are some excerpts from the linked article:
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
sports.yahoo.com
Oof hadn’t heard that they won’t split it equally between men and women. That’s another lawsuit waiting to happen.It looks like, because of Title IX, that a lot of male & female athletes would get a cut of the $15M-$20M but the vast majority of the revenue sharing would be directed towards football and men's basketball.
When it comes to female sports, here are some excerpts from the linked article:
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
Regarding Title IX, why is that even a thing now? When you can identify as "whatever, whenever" this should be stripped out of the conversation entirely. If the Left is going to set women back 100yrs, might as well get it all out of the way.Why are some against it?
There are a few main arguments from those who are against settling.
(1) Any settlement offers only short-term protection from further lawsuits, meaning it needs codification from Congress to become a long-term or permanent solution. The NCAA and power leagues have spent five years lobbying lawmakers to pass a federal bill to manage athlete compensation. Since 2020, there have been more than 10 congressional hearings and multiple bills filed. No single piece of legislation has even advanced to a House or Senate full committee discussion. Will a settlement change congressional action? That’s the goal.
(2) The settlement may not put a complete end to the NIL-fueled arms race in college sports, where booster-led groups are donating millions to fund their teams because schools are not permitted to directly pay athletes. At some competitive programs with significant resources, NIL collectives may continue to operate much in the way they do now, providing extra cash on top of what’s allowed from schools. If a school purchases its athletes’ NIL rights, any outside NIL could be eliminated (something referred to often as “in-house NIL”). But how many athletes would agree to such? It remains an unanswered question.
Complicating matters is a separate case, brought against the NCAA by attorneys general in Virginia and Tennessee, that has successfully, for now, legalized NIL-related inducements from third parties such as collectives.
(3) The settlement alone may not prevent the current rate of player movement across the college sports landscape. The NCAA recently changed its transfer policies to permit athletes to move freely without penalty, aligning its own rules with a court injunction that did the same in December. That, again, is a separate case complicating matters.
(4) There are several active cases remaining where courts could eventually deem athletes as employees. How the settlement impacts those cases is unclear. This creates anxiety for administrators who wish to avoid employment at all costs.
What happens to the Group of Five?
The House case, and any potential settlement of it, focuses on the power conference programs — those athletic departments within the NCAA that generate the most revenue. Kessler, the lead attorney in House, said as much earlier this month during a speaking engagement in Washington, D.C., noting that those schools that cannot afford to share revenue will not necessarily be required to do so.
The settlement would be what several administrators describe as “permissive”: A school does not have to share $20 million with its athletes but the agreement opens the door to give schools the freedom to do so. In a competitive market fueled by the recruiting of high school and college transfers, schools will naturally jockey to offer athletes as much as they can.
Most Group of Five and FCS football programs do not generate a profit, and their athletic departments are often subsidized by university and student fees. There are programs at the G5 level where $20 million in revenue sharing would nearly eclipse their entire department revenue for the year.
“You really have to think about (the Power Four schools) as different,” Kessler said earlier this month. “The reason we get tied in knots is because we conflate those schools who have developed these gigantic independent commercial businesses with the schools who are still just educational institutions with extracurricular activities. When you try to come up with one rule for all, you go crazy. You have to look at the schools differently. For the ones with the money, there is plenty of money to compensate the athletes and share it with the women’s sports.”
Many G5 athletic directors hold such fear that this new revenue-sharing model will put them so far behind that they are at least toying with the idea of holding their own postseason event.
In a new world of revenue sharing, competition between those in the power leagues and those in the Group of Five won’t necessarily end. But the gap between the top and bottom of FBS, already exacerbated in the NIL era, will further grow.
How will a school determine who gets paid and how much?
This is not completely clear. But common sense tells us that athletes participating in a sport that generates the most revenue are likely to earn more of a share of that revenue than those participating in sports that don’t generate as much (or any at all).
At many power conference athletic departments, football and, to a lesser extent, men’s basketball are the only sports that produce significant revenue figures. The money that those sports generate is normally pumped back into those sports themselves and the dozens of Olympic sports that lose millions annually.
However, schools are bound by Title IX, a 52-year-old federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Athletic departments are required to provide the same opportunities for women athletes as they do men. The law is heralded as a significant driver in producing a robust and successful women’s athletic movement in the United States and on the world stage at the Olympics. Millions of young women have come through the college sports pipeline in sports specifically sanctioned to adhere to Title IX.
But how does Title IX apply in a revenue-sharing model?
That question remains unclear and there is ongoing litigation in Oregon that could, eventually, provide the answer.
In an interview in January, Baker said he believed that Title IX terminology is more “about equal participation” and not “so much about equal amounts.” That would open the door for a school to share more total revenue with men athletes as long as the school offers revenue to an equal number of women athletes.
In his appearance in Washington D.C., Kessler noted that he “hopes” Title IX is applied in any future athlete compensation model.
What’s next?
Over the next month, particulars of the new revenue-sharing model are expected to be further socialized across the four major conferences (much of this has already been done). Meetings will be had and arguments will unfold. Many have circled the end of May as a looming deadline to agree on a settlement.
In the end, votes from each league’s board of presidents are expected in what could be a historic move to, once and for all, send crumbling the final piece of NCAA amateurism.
Or, perhaps, not.
“Change is here. It is not going to stay the same. It’s already different,” Kessler said earlier this month. “The best thing that everybody should think about is, ‘OK, how can we make this change the most positive change for everyone involved?’
“Stop living a vision that doesn’t exist. Face the realities here, because it’s going to happen. The question is, are you going to be part of that change or not be part of that change?”
What would House v. NCAA settlement mean? A revenue-sharing model to end college amateurism
After months of negotiations in the House antitrust case, the next evolution of athlete compensation is on the horizon.
Revenue generation - why is this such a hard thing to grasp? If you don't generate the money, why would you get 50% of it? This mindset needs to stop.
Because these institutions are non-profit. Unless that changes, it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s a title IX infringement plain and simple.
The Iowa women's basketball team definitely outgenerated the men's team this year. (Small and cherry picked sample I know) But also, why are you so against it? I take it you are also firmly in the camp of stripping CEO's of their bloated salaries/stock options/whatever compensation package they have? They surely aren't generating the revenue, that's the workforce below them that easily doesn't accrue nearly 50% of the earnings.
I thought with Title IX that you had to spend equally on men's and women's sports.....
So, I don't know how you can give most of the $20M in revenue to the men...but who knows anymore....
if you have to spend equally, then there might be an issue when it comes to revenue sharing
Men can be women and vice versanin todays world. Title IX is virtually negated now.
Here is an update from tonight.
Click on "sports.yahoo.com" in the tweet to take you to the full story
Click on "sports.yahoo.com" in the tweet to take you to the full story
Sources: New college athlete compensation model may cost power schools $300M each over 10 years
Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Thu, May 2, 2024, 7:35 PM CDT·8 min read
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — A bag slung over his shoulder and luggage in his hand, Baylor football coach Dave Aranda hustled down the main staircase at the Hyatt Gainey Ranch after the annual Big 12 conference meetings.
He buzzed through the lobby for a quick hello and then jettisoned out the door with a destination in mind. “I’m going to see the (Arizona) Cardinals,” he said, smiling. “Got to learn how to do all this!”
A college coach or administrator visiting a professional sports organization is not necessarily groundbreaking. But Aranda’s visit — presumably to learn more about roster management and pay scale — is indicative of the times.
The college sports industry is moving closer to the inevitable: a direct athlete-compensation model.
As industry executives continue to negotiate with plaintiff lawyers in the House antitrust case, details of a future compensation model — a necessary piece to any settlement agreement — continue to emerge. Those who shared details were granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak about a proposed settlement that continues to undergo changes.
While negotiations are active and have been for as many as eight months — not a new revelation within the industry — concepts of the proposed new model are becoming more formalized as leaders work to meet a deadline set by attorneys.
Money figures are becoming clear: For those in the power conferences, the price tag is steep.
The 10-year settlement agreement could cost each power school as much as $300 million over the decade, or $30 million a year. That figure assumes a school meets what is believed to be: (1) a $17-22 million revenue distribution cap for athletes; (2) at least $2 million in withheld NCAA distribution for back damages; and (3) as much as $10 million in additional scholarship costs related to an expansion of sport-specific roster sizes — a concept previously unpublicized.
The $30 million price tag, a startling figure for an industry that has only provided athletes with mostly non-cash resources, is about 20% of the average athletic department budget of public schools in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.
However, as reported earlier this week, the revenue-sharing portion of the new model is “permissive,” meaning schools are not required to reach the cap or share revenue at all. Schools will also have the discretion to expand scholarships, or not, across new roster limits expected to be implemented across all sanctioned sports.
While concepts are murky and questions linger, a framework of a new model is becoming more visible and socialized with high-ranking administrators across the four power conferences.
Meanwhile, that deadline — within the next 40 days — is approaching quickly.
What’s the money?
For months now, the college athletics world has prepared or, perhaps, braced itself for the removal of the NCAA’s century-old amateurism rules — whether through an employment ruling, litigation settlement or state law change.But there is still sticker shock in the figures slowly seeping from negotiations.
Schools will have the opportunity to share millions in revenue with athletes with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team’s salary cap. Estimates put the amount at $17-22 million per program, though the amount could fluctuate. The figure was determined through a percentage (roughly 22%) of an average of Power Four athletic department revenue streams, most notably ticket sales, television contracts and sponsorships — not donations.
Separately, the NCAA is responsible for paying about $2.9 billion in back damages over a 10-year period. The funds, some of which could be offset by insurance payments, are expected to come from the NCAA’s annual distribution to schools, mostly from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament (upwards of $700 million annually). Power schools are expecting to see a reduction in distribution by at least $2 million annually, but that figure, too, could fluctuate dramatically.
The final financial concept to any new model involves the implementation of roster limits and the expansion of scholarships across those limits. For instance, under current rules, the NCAA permits schools to distribute 11.7 scholarships across a baseball roster of 32 players.
Under this new model, schools may now choose to provide a scholarship to each roster position — however many are determined for that specific sport. The same goes for other sports, including football, which could see its roster limit actually reduced. The NCAA recently increased the football roster limit for preseason camp from 110 players to 120.
The expense of increasing scholarships is significant. Two power conference administrators told Yahoo Sports that they plan to add more than 100 additional scholarships at the expense of $9-10 million annually. A portion of the additional scholarship expense may be counted toward the revenue-sharing cap, but that too is a fluctuating figure.
Who’s in?
Not every school’s president or chancellor is in agreement on settling the lawsuit and adopting a new model for a variety of reasons explained in this Yahoo Sports story published earlier this week.The topic has generated plenty of spirited debate within meetings among conference presidents and athletic directors over the last year. The approval of any settlement likely needs a simple majority or supermajority vote from a conference’s board of university presidents.
The Big Ten is most aligned in its desire to settle the suit, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. But, as one administrator said, “if one league settles, we all settle.”
However, some conferences are exploring the possibility of setting their own league-wide revenue-sharing cap at an amount lower than the $17-22 million figure.
Is this a possibility? It remains murky.
But it’s a stark reminder of the existing budgetary gap between the ACC/Big 12 and SEC/Big Ten, whose future television contracts and College Football Playoff distribution will further grow that financial chasm. Should the Big 12 and ACC have a lower rev-share cap than the richer SEC and Big Ten? It’s a question some are asking.
Some schools, even those in the power leagues, may not have the resources to even afford half of the rev-share cap. In a hotly competitive industry where talent acquisition is rooted in recruiting, offering a limited amount of funds could further grow gaps not only between the four conferences but within them.
“Some schools may say, ‘I’m out,’” said one industry source.
But there is new money coming. The CFP recently completed an ESPN television extension that pays $1.3 billion annually to the conferences — a combined 58% of which is earmarked for the SEC and Big Ten (roughly $20-23 million per school annually). The ACC and Big 12 receive about 15-17%.
There are other options too, such as reducing coaching and administrative salaries. Salaries and buyouts are responsible for nearly 40% of athletic department budgets in FBS, according to data from the Knight Commission. Another 20% of budgets are related to facility construction, renovation and debt.
Already, schools are gearing up to slice salaries. Within the contract of Missouri’s new athletic director, Laird Veatch, there will feature a “force majeure provision” related to potential changes in the college sports financial model, according to the Columbia Tribune. Model changes could trigger a renegotiation of his deal, according to the outlet.
Such a concept goes beyond the contract of athletic directors. At one SEC school, administrators at least attempted to include a similar clause within the contracts of new coaching hires. The clause triggers a salary reduction if athlete revenue-sharing is adopted, according to two people with knowledge of the clause.
As one administrator quipped, “You can always find the money.”
When does it start?
If a settlement is reached — it’s not a guarantee — the revenue-sharing model will begin no sooner than the fall of 2025 and could even be delayed until 2026.The timing and the settlement hinges, somewhat, on another antitrust case: Fontenot v. NCAA. That case seeks billions of dollars for college athletes in compensation from televised broadcasts.
While the House settlement is expected to consolidate two other antitrust cases — Hubbard and Carter — the Fontenot case is an outlier. House, Hubbard and Carter share the same legal team in Steve Berman, of Hagens Berman, and Jeffrey Kessler, of Winston & Strawn. Fontenot was brought by the law firm Korein Tillery.
A hearing is set in the Fontenot case for later this month, a key date in settlement discussions. A consolidation of all four cases is ideal as to prevent future legal challenges against the NCAA and power leagues.
How does this happen? It’s one of many lingering unanswered questions as negotiations continue, just like the swirling uncertainty around Title IX (how is it applied?) and the future of NIL collectives (will it all be brought in-house?).
What is a certainty: College athletics is on the clock in a more serious way than it’s ever been.
It's a "He" actually, don't justify their mental dysphoria. They need to seek mental health help.
Actually, there are many male athletes competing in women’s sports. The Washington Stand found that 28 national girls or women’s sports titles were won by trans-identified men between 2003 and 2022, with “the trend accelerating over the past three years.” Each male victory has a multiplier effect, displacing many girls or women from opportunities designed for them.
Revenue or profit? Any sport that charges admission is making revenue. Any sport that appears on BTN is likely making revenue.
Talk about cooking the books.
Some baseball programs make a profit. So they can pay players but schools like Iowa wouldn’t ?
I think the system will pretty much stay the mess it currently is because the lawsuits and lack of gender equality and even program equality from institution to institution varies too much. It’s a mess that schools don’t want to waste millions on in legal fees. As long as the TV money keeps rolling in there is little incentive to worry about it.
Last edited:
If your cost to operate is 1million and your revenue generations is 500k, how do you share the profit? Football should get the brunt of the revenue as they are the ones that generate the revenue.
Much like WNBA paying their top pick 76k a year and NBA paying theirs 10million...revenue generation.
The TITLE of the post is "REVENUE" I was following the boundaries of that...
Your linked article did very little research into its alleged titles stolen. The Thundercrit bike race (specifically the lightning category they are talking about) is open to trans men and women. I remember the "outrage" from everyone who saw the picture and headline with no context. Now I'm tempted to look at the rest of them.It's a "He" actually, don't justify their mental dysphoria. They need to seek mental health help.
Actually, there are many male athletes competing in women’s sports. The Washington Stand found that 28 national girls or women’s sports titles were won by trans-identified men between 2003 and 2022, with “the trend accelerating over the past three years.” Each male victory has a multiplier effect, displacing many girls or women from opportunities designed for them.
good thing we have increased annual revenue coming from:
* The new CFP contract
* The new B1G TV contract
they can get around the Title IX by reclassifying Football and Men's Basketball into semi Pro Leagues with each School a Franchise and the TV money having nothing to do with the NCAA and the Players not even on scholarship but under contract with the payments to the League Offices and then paid to the " franchises " . Keep the equal Scholarships for non revenue sports in effect under the NCAA to satisfy the Title IX stupidity , it is going in that direction already anyway
The players will be looking for: (1) A to-be-determined percentage of media rights revenue; (2) Medical care after their college careers; (3) the players' could register as a 501(c)(5) labor organization & potentially begin the process of becoming a union.
Link to Story:
Players talking more benefits with Big Ten leaders
Big Ten players and an independent players' association are talking to conference officials about improved benefits and a bigger voice in college football's future.www.espn.com
See (3) directly above (in July 2022 Kevin Warren was discussing this issue with the football players).
And now? Players want to be able to bargain for MORE without being classified as employees.
Well then….ROFLMAO. A sport loses millions every year but we charge for admission so let’s lose even more money by increasing expenses.
I am sure schools are dying for that option.
Okay, so men have no advantage over women in sports is your mindset.
Why even have a gender category then? Just make everything open and watch ZERO women win, how fair that would be. Hopefully if you have daughters\granddaughters that they don't experience a male taking their roster spot or keeping them from winning at their specific activity. THen you will need to explain to them how "it's fair and that they should just work harder, or something".
Last edited:
So WNBA should get the same pay as the NBA? Pro women's soccer should get paid the same as men's? The car salesmans that sells 2 cars a year should get paid the same as the sales person that sells 100 cars per year?
I take it you are in one of the camps above as you feel that as long as you are participating that you should get the same pay as someone that is working their arse off? Let's say you are in college, don't give to craps about grades, are getting D's all the way through. It should then be that any high achieving student should have to assume 2 of your D's and they give you two of their A's, makes sense.
NCAA will implode, the amount of money that everyone is demanding is unsustainable. Fans will just stop watching\going\buying, other than the elites in the climate-controlled watch rooms.
I definitely said all of those things. Did you read anything I posted or just jump to your prebuilt conclusions?
If you said all these things, then it isnt jumping to conclusion. Do or dont, makes little difference to me, you have your opinion.
@obfuscating is another 1 trick pony. All about when this happens and that happens. Just wait until every single women's sports team is all trans people. These guys are ridiculous.
It's happening, not anyone's fault but your own for being blind to it. I know facts are hard to folks like you to stomach, but facts don't care about feelings.
I don't see the "chicken little" depiction of what your mind described above occurring. I think there will be folks that say "enough is enough" and put an end to men taking women's rightful spots in women's sports. So far the deniers of "it's not going to happen" have to eat some crow as it is happening to women, and folks like you are just sitting on your hands watching. Sometimes it doesn't have an impact until the scenario is on your doorstep and then it's too late. But you do you.
So you didn't read any of my posts and just ran with your preconceived talking points. Good to know.
Gotta have a solid league like the NFL where small markets can still be in the mix. Then on the teams gotta manage some making much more than others. Each college needs a football GM.
He should ask for a pay increase! Will have to look forward to contract negotiations with all players in next year or two.
Some of the players will have some high profile agents/attorneys.
Similar threads
