The NCAA is still making every effort to shut the Pandora’s box that the introduction of NIL deals may have opened.
The athletic organization, along with the Power Five conferences (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and Pac-12), filed an interlocutory appeal against a recent federal antitrust case ruling that seemed to benefit its plaintiffs and may
jeopardize their financial standing on Tuesday, according to Amanda Christovich of Front Office News.
The first case, House v. NCAA, was heard in Californian courts back in 2020. For current and past student athletes who competed prior to the implementation of the NIL policy, the plaintiffs are requesting damages. They contend that the athletes ought to be compensated with merchandise, broadcast deals, and other benefits that the NCAA, individual schools, and conferences get. Judge Beth Wilkinson granted the athletes permission on November 17 to pursue three different damage classes in the event that their case is successful.
According to court records, the NCAA and Power 5 conferences contended that the decision was based on incorrect interpretations of NIL. Additionally, they contended that the “consequences” of having to pay these damages would be “staggering” if they lost the case.
The NCAA and Power 5 conferences argued in court documents that the ruling was based on erroneous interpretations of NIL. They further argued that if they lost the case, the “consequences” of having to pay these damages would be “staggering”.
Though the NCAA and the Power Five are willing to take their time with the proceedings, it’s tough to imagine that their claims of financial ruin will come to light when considering recent conference realignment. In the eternal chase for more cash, 10 of the 12 members of the Pac-12 are leaving for the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC.
