re: Livvy Dunne submits formal objection to House settlement

quote:

---

It's because both Dunne & the writer of the article talks about NIL when the hearing that Dunne made the objection to retro payments is actually concerning RETROACTIVE REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS. Both Dunne & the writer doesn't realize this settlement has nothing to do with NIL or retro payments for prior missed NIL opportunities.

---

It’s a bit more complicated than that. You can’t fully separate revenue sharing from NIL. Part of the argument that lead to the settlement is that schools are using athletes’ NIL to generate revenue, but have illegally colluded (via the NCAA) to avoid compensating the athletes for that NIL.

It’s a little weird because I think most people see a distinction between NIL value and performance value. There’s a logical difference between the value a player’s name provides to a program vs. the value their on-field performance provides. From what I can tell, though, it does not appear that the lawsuit/settlement distinguishes between the two concepts.

Of course, this is different than the third-party NIL value that drives Dunne’s income. You’re right that third-party NIL value isn’t really what’s being addressed under the settlement.

However, it’s also not clear to me whether athletes (who do not opt out of the settlement) would lose their ability to seek any damages due to loss of third-party NIL value prior to the NIL rule change. if so, the settlement wouldn’t simply be “back pay” for revenue sharing; it would represent all of the damages you’re eligible to receive for those claims as well.

At face value, it seems to me that the settlement would bar any athletes who receive damages from going after the NCAA for NIL issues moving forward. If so, I don’t think Dunne’s objection is as off-topic as you are suggesting. But again it’s not entirely clear.

All of that being said - there were always going to be athletes who objected to the settlement distribution. Some objections will be valid, some will not. While I think Dunne may have a point, I also think her situation is unique enough that it shouldn’t really make much difference.

ETA: Honestly, the assertion that “this settlement has nothing to do with NIL” is just wrong. $2 billion of the settlement amount is defined as “NIL Claims Settlement Amount” in the actual settlement document.

quote:

---

It's good to be a college athlete today. These kids are reaping the benefits of a no rules environment. Enjoy it while you can because it can't continue this way.

---

It’s damn near the same as it’s always been…a few players get all the money…most players grind their arse off to see the field and get any success.

There are 32 five star football athletes for 2025.

quote:

---

She’s a child

---

She's an attention whore who parlayed her looks, and played the mouth breathers that drool on their keyboards to her present status

quote:

---

It’s damn near the same as it’s always been…a few players get all the money…most players grind their arse off to see the field and get any success.

There are 32 five star football athletes for 2025.

---

I'm not sure you're going to get a lot of sympathy here, as most did not get full room, board, stipend, and NIL if applicable.

The thing is with Title IX, the House settlement will be challenged and it will likely go to SCOTUS. I think it is important to look at the Alston Ruling-

quote:

---

One of the great sports law misunderstandings in college sports is that the U.S. Supreme Court made NIL possible through its ruling in NCAA v. Alston (2021).

The reality is that Alston had nothing to do with NIL or even compensation for playing sports. The Supreme Court held that the NCAA and its member institutions violated federal antitrust law by agreeing to limit each member’s opportunities to compensate college athletes for education-related expenses. Those expenses included costs related to study abroad programs, postgraduate scholarships, vocational school scholarships, technology fees and other costs that are connected to education. Given that a core mission of the NCAA and its members is to provide quality education to college athletes, rules that make it harder for schools to defray education costs are conceptually problematic.

In Alston, neither the phrase “name, image and likeness” nor “NIL” appears even once in the roughly 13,000 words written by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his majority opinion and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. That’s not surprising since NIL wasn’t a topic in Alston. NIL also involves an entirely different area of law: the right of publicity.

The right of publicity is found in state laws and there is no accompanying federal statute.

---

quote:

---

During June 2021, the NCAA pleaded with Congress to pass legislation that would have preempted the impending state NIL statutes, create national rules for NIL and ensure NCAA control over NIL. Congress failed to act, and the NCAA declined to seek restraining orders and injunctions against NIL statutes before they went into effect

---

quote:

---

First, the facts and legal challenges presented to the Supreme Court in Alston were not about play-for-play or NIL. A sensible reading of a court ruling is one that takes the ruling for what it is, not what a reader wants it to be.

Second, the justices in Alston went out of their way to clarify the ruling only concerned “a narrow subset” of NCAA rules tied to education-related expenses. NCAA rules related to compensation for playing sports, the justices noted, remained in good standing.

Third, there is reason to believe some of the justices would side in favor of the NCAA on other types of athlete compensation restrictions. During the oral argument for Alston, several of the justices noticeably expressed worry about the commercialization of college sports and the morphing of college athletes into pro athletes.

---

US Supreme Court Ruling

quote:

---

One of the great sports law misunderstandings in college sports is that the U.S. Supreme Court made NIL possible through its ruling in NCAA v. Alston (2021).

---

I’ve been beating this drum for several years and every time, someone argues about it.

It amazes me that the national sports media still gets this wrong consistently, saying that the Alston ruling forced the NCAA to allow NIL. Kavanaugh’s opinion made clear that the NCAA wasn’t going to find much sympathy from the courts on antitrust issues, but the states (starting with California) forced their hand on NIL.

Yup, that was when my son was going to start as a freshman. ~$3300/mo for NIL was the figure we were told. They expected profit sharing to be about that as well. On top of the $25k tax free stipend it was going to be pretty nice for him.

He tossed all that and now he’ll get a few thousand a semester stipend and something like $500/mo NIL (the UF GM threw out this number, don’t know the actual). The idea was to negotiate a spring package for him…but IDK how that went…or if it has, or if it will.

He’ll work a few camps through his national coach to earn extra money.

How bout that, all that money for nothing more than being hot and doing stuff like rolling forward then bouncing your arse up and down, but it's not enough. She deserves more money ofc.