April 25, 2025 • 51 mins
Women's college sports are about to experience a sea change; sports law specialists Kelleigh Fagan and Alicia Jessop join Sarah to discuss. They talk about how the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit will impact women athletes, how the Trump administration’s attack on Title IX could affect payouts to plaintiffs, and the surprising way NIL oversight attempts mirror a legendary Inside Amy Schumer sketch. Plus a What The Fact about the WNBA Draft, speaking ownership goals into existence, and a “maybe” that we hope changes to a “definitely” before 2028.
-
The NWSL schedule can be found here
-
The PWHL schedule can be found here
-
The PVF schedule can be found here
-
The WER schedule can be found here
-
Check out Temi Fagbenle’s Instagram post about joining the cast of “Children of Blood and Bone” here
-
Send us a note at goodgame@wondermedianetwork.com
-
Follow Sarah on social! Bluesky: @sarahspain.com Instagram: @Spain2323
-
Follow producer Misha Jones! Bluesky: @mishthejrnalist.bsky.social Instagram: @mishthejrnalist
-
Follow producer Alex Azzi! Bluesky: @by
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we are
stoked because it's sixty degrees in Chicago today and honestly,
I really don't care if your area has been sixty
plus for some time. Now, just let me have this, Okay,
It's Friday, April twenty fifth, Happy Friday Slices. On today's show,
we'll be talking to attorneys and sports laws specialists Kelly
Fagan and Alicia Jessop about the House versus NCAA class
(00:23):
action antitrust lawsuit, ways that the suit might impact women's
college sports, and how the Trump administration's attack on Title
nine could affect payouts to plaintiffs. There is about to
be a sea change in women's sports, y'all. This is
a must listen to know what's coming down the pike. Plus,
the PWHL is back and sprinting towards the playoffs. Simone
Biles is a maybe for LA twenty twenty eight, and
(00:45):
WNBA draftees face some stiff odds. It's all coming up
right after this Welcome back slices, Here's what you need
to know today in hockey news. The PWHL picks back
(01:09):
up tomorrow after observing an international break for most of April.
The Montreal Victoire returns sitting at the top of the table,
having already clinched a playoff spot. Meanwhile, last year's champs,
the Minnesota Frost are sitting just five points ahead of
last place New York. We're firmly in the home stretch
of the regular season, which ends on May third, and
only the top four teams in the league make the playoffs.
(01:29):
Beginning the week of May fifth, there are two games
to tune into on Saturday, beginning at twelve Eastern, with
Montreal at Ottawa, followed by Toronto at Boston at two
pm Eastern. You can catch both those matchups streaming live
on the PWHL's YouTube channel, and we'll link to the
full league schedule in our show notes. In Soccer News,
friend of the Show and former US women's national team
player Lauren Holliday and her husband MNBA star Drew Holiday,
(01:53):
are now investors in the NWSLS North Carolina Courage. You
might remember Lauren was a founding investor in Angel City FC,
but she is divested from the club. The Courage announced
Lauren and her husband as the newest members of its
ownership group on Wednesday, and per the team's release, the
former footy star will also assume a role as an
advisor and ambassador with the club, directly influencing on field, business,
community and player initiative decisions. Now we hear a good game.
(02:16):
Love to see that news, in particular because you might
recall our November twenty seventh episode Big Meddling Energy with Lauren,
in which she talked at length about her desire to
be a change maker in the sports ownership space. So
kudos to the Holidays for putting their money where their
mouths are. Can't wait to see how their financial contribution
and Lauren's breadth of experience benefit the club. More soccer.
(02:37):
Seven NWSL games to check out this weekend, beginning tonight
with the Utah Royals visiting the Houston Dash that's on
NWSL Plus. Then we've got angel CITYFC visiting the Orlando
Pride on Prime Video. Both those games kick off at
eight pm Eastern. We'll link to the full NWSL weekend
schedule in our show notes. We've also got Pro Volleyball
Federation Action and Women's Elite rugby games going down tonight
(03:00):
and over the weekend, so we'll link to those League
schedules in our show notes as well, and don't forget
the Chevron Championship. The first LPGA major of the year
continues today and all weekend. You can watch on the
Golf Channel and ESPN Plus to College hoops, where the
transfer portal officially closed on Wednesday. Graduate transfers can still
enter the portal at any time, but barring a coaching change,
(03:21):
anyone else who wants to switch squads will have to
sit out a season or apply to the NCAA for
a waiver. There's no deadline for players who did enter
the portal to commit to a new school, though, so
we're still a waiting word on a few players destinations.
Some interesting stats per on three dot com. As of
Thursday morning, fifteen hundred and fifteen players entered the portal,
(03:41):
five hundred seventy two have committed to a new team,
and thirty two have withdrawn their names from the portal
fifteen hundred and fifteen. That's thirty percent of players entering
the portal this season. Unreal to Gymnastics News, Simone Biles,
the most decorated gymnast of all time, doesn't know yet
if she'll compete at the LA twenty twenty eight Olympics.
The twenty eight year old told French sports daily lay
(04:02):
Keep that she does plan on being present for the games,
but she's not sure if she'll be on the mat
or cheering in the crowd. At the Paris Olympics, she
brought her total metal tally up to seven gold and
eleven overall medals, but said afterward her body shut down
on her upon returning to the Olympic village in Paris.
She totally keep her body quote literally collapsed. I was
sick for ten days end quote. For her to compete
(04:23):
in La Biles said, quote, it would have to really
excite me. Biles also praised fellow international gymnastics superstar Rebecca Andrage,
saying that the sport only needs one of them and
that the next generation of gymnasts will quote knock at
the door and everything will start again. Now. Selfishly, we
really hope she wants to compete by the time twenty
twenty eight rolls around, but we also wanted to do
(04:44):
what's best for her. We're rooting for you either way, Simone. Finally,
in Fashion News, tennis superstar Cocoa Goff is teaming up
with new Balance and mew Mew on a new collection.
She'll wear a different version of the cllab for each
upcoming tournament, with unique colourways inspired by each event, and
she'll write a different custom co branded version of her
signature shoe, the Coco CG two, reimagined by New Balance
(05:06):
and Mew Mew. Normies like us can snag the looks
beginning in September. Quick shout out to our fearless leader
Laura Kurrenti at Deep Blue at the Business of Women's
Sports Summit on Tuesday, she teased a return trip to
Sport Beach in can and today Deep Blue announced more details.
It's going to be a three day experience from June
sixteenth to eighteenth, called the Deep Blue Women's Sports Yacht Club,
(05:28):
supported by Genius Sports and JP Morgan Chase and featuring
the Wellness Oasis. It's going to be an immersive beachside experience.
Keep leading and we will follow Laura, especially if it's
to the French Riviera. We got to take a quick
break when we come back. We're talking Legal to you
with Kelly Fagan and Alicia Jessop who we caught up
with last week. Keep it here joining us now. She's
(05:57):
a co founder and chair of the Sports Law practic
just at Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim Law. A sports
law attorney specializing in the evolving legal landscape of collegiate athletics,
including NCAA compliance Title nine issues, hazing, in misconduct, investigations,
name image and likeness, and revenue sharing matters. She represents universities, colleges,
student athletes, coaches, and administrators. She previously worked in the
(06:18):
NCAA's Enforcement Department and graduated summa cum laude from Indiana
University and summa cum laude from Indiana University McKinney School
of Law. A collegiate golfer before injury sidelined her, It's
Kelly Fagan.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Hi, Kelly, Hi, Sarah, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
What was your best club?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I was a pretty good putter.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Woh's. That's the toughest one in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I putt left handed and swing right handed, so
a little bit odd.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
A woman of mystery joining her. She's a sport law
professor at Pepperdine and attorney at Daniel, Ebling, Machia and Cohen,
representing professional athletes, agencies, broadcasters and startups, and matters including
contract negotiation, sports sponsorship negotiation, NILC, contract drafting and review,
and more. The host of the Ruling Sports podcast and
founder of Ruling Sports, a website examining the success of athletes, executives,
(07:08):
and entrepreneurs beyond the game. She's a graduate of the
Colorado School of Minds, with her jd from Chapman University
Fowler School of Law. She shares my love for Wahiki
Island in New Zealand. It's Alicia Jessa Pilishaw.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Yes, I love that. We could do a whole episode
on that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
If you want to go just on Mudbrick the most
magical place in the world.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
It is, it really is.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
I want to go back asap.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Thanks so much to both of you for joining me.
I'm so excited to talk about this. There is so
much to talk about in terms of the changing college
sports landscape, and we need experts that know all the
nitty gritty who can then dumb it down for us
lay people and help us understand. So I wouldn't say
exactly talk to me like I'm a fifth grader or
a five year old, but like some somewhere a little
bit above that would be good for all of us.
(07:50):
That are just trying to understand all this change in
the space. And I want to start with something we've
talked about here on the show a few times but
not in a lot of detail, and that's House versus
nc So, Kelly, can you explain the House versus NCAA case?
Who is House, what's at stake, and what's the ultimate ruling?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
If the settlement is approved, then sort of two big
components to it. One is forward looking and one is
backward looking. The backward looking component is about two point
eight billion dollars in damages that will be paid. It's
structured in the settlement as to how it will get
paid out, but a majority of it will go to
(08:30):
football players over the past from sixteen to twenty twenty four,
and then there will be a percentage for men's basketball,
women's basketball, and then all other sports. The forward looking
portion of it is injunctive relief that will last ten
years and will allow institutions to pay if those institutions
(08:53):
that are not parties opt in or the defendant conferences
are all automatically opted in, but allow them to pay
directly inil payments or revenue share payments to student athletes
up to that twenty point five million pool for the
first year, and then that will be increased over time
as revenues increase.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
So houses one person, he was a former Arizona State swimmer.
He sued the nc DOUBLEA and its power conferences and
said that they were violating antitrust laws, that the prevention
of nil, name image and likeness was anti competitive, and
ultimately it's trying to upend this long held belief that
amateurism is what's at the core of NCAA sports. And
(09:36):
then once anybody's allowed to get paid, everything falls apart.
The only people who can get paid are coaches and
administrators and schools and everybody else getting rich. But now
we're trying to figure out if college athletes can be
directly paid by their schools. And this is an addition
and separate from NIL, which is name image, and like this,
this is actually a school itself paying its athletes understanding
(09:57):
all the revenue that they bring to that school. And
like you mentioned, particularly football basketball, we'll get into how
it's being doled out, But Alicia, like big picture before
we get into the nitty gritty of back pay and
roster limits. What are some of the most obvious outcomes
of House versus NCAA on women's college sports.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Well, I think the most obvious outcome is something that
you alluded to. The NCAA, founded in nineteen oh six,
historically had this amateurism principle where there was a clear
demarcation between no compensation to college athletes to very quickly
we're zooming into a college sport landscape where the schools
are going to directly be paying the college athletes. So
(10:39):
as it relates to women's sport in particular, the question becomes,
are the schools going to take this opportunity to reshape
a landscape that's truly built on fairness, equity and investing
in the power and sustainability of women's sports, or are
they going to continue the historic practice of underinvesting in
(11:00):
women's sports. And how they allocate these revenue share payments
so negotiated into the settlement, they're not going to like that.
I call it this, but there's a cap. There's a
limit on what schools can pay their college athletes. And
for the twenty five twenty six school year, it amounts
to roughly twenty one million dollars, give or take. And
(11:20):
so that twenty one million dollars athletics directors, presidents of universities,
and general managers, which we now have in college sports.
They need to decide how to divvy up that fund
and it will be seen how the money goes to
women's for athletes.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah. I mean, my brain is like exploding thinking about
all the things that have to be in play, because
it's not just men's versus women's athletes. But is it
starters versus bench players? Is it? At our school we
prioritize football, So if you want to come play here,
we're actually gonna have our football players way more than
any other school does because they're more carefully allocating it
also to basketball and other things. What about schools that
(11:57):
don't even have football? That removes hundreds of players to
take money, and that means the basketball players would probably
get a higher percentage of that twenty one million. So
wild wild west, right, because right now, Alicia, they're not
dictating how schools can decide to whom they give the money.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
That's absolutely right, Sarah. So I use this example in
class where let's say there's just this phenomenal quarterback and
the school believes this quarterback could win a Heisman lead
to a national championship, and their's solid research that shows
the financial growth that comes to a university when those
two things happen. An athlete wins a Heisman a national
(12:34):
championship is one. It drives up attendance, it drives up applications,
it drives up donorship. So there's a possibility. I don't
think this will happen, but there is a possibility where
a school could say, you know, we're going to take
this entire cap and we're going to allocate it to
this one athlete because we believe he or maybe someday
she can generate massive revenue growth and a positive ROI.
(12:58):
So the settlement it's self doesn't put any quote guardrails, limitations, rules,
or structure around how the payments are allocated, which raises
some questions in the world of say Title nine, which
I think we might discuss absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And also it just fundamentally shifts what we think of
college sports being as part of the larger educational and
academic experience. It really starts to muddy the water about
how these aren't just minor leagues that are operating under
the guise of a larger institution, particularly when some of
these schools that have massive football programs with waterfalls in
(13:36):
their locker room, have parts of their library falling out
of the ceiling, and how they're deciding where to put
their money and resources. Okay, so let's dig in a
little more, Kelly, let's briefly talk about a few specific elements,
starting with back pay for past athletes. You mentioned this
is the backward looking element. How will that be decided
and handed out?
Speaker 2 (13:56):
So the settlement specifies how that will be paid to
those athletes that are in the class. Seventy five percent
will go to football, twenty percent will go to men's
and women's basketball, and five percent to the remaining sports.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
And can each school decide that, So, if you have
a more successful women's basketball team than men's or if
you don't have a certain kind of program, is this
backpay being handled the same way? So it's really up
to each individual school to decide who gets what.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Claimants there's a website they can go to and figure
out how much they will get paid. So the settlement
determines it, and the institutions are supplying information about who
is part of the class and who may be entitled
to it, But it does not necessarily depend on your success.
It's governed by the settlement and through the claims administrator.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
So in theory, if you won a national championship, you
brought a ton of revenue as a result, you might
be paid as someone on a team that had zero wins.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, and there is an opportunity for the people in
the it's in the class to object and say they
don't agree, which there have been objections, and they can
choose to opt out and try to secure that value
that they think they've had they've they've garnered to the
school through their performance. But it's definitely that's that's not
(15:18):
a smooth of a road. Is I'll just take my
money that I'm getting through a class and move on.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Goodness, this is messy. This is keeping all you lawyers
in business. I'll tell you that there many many hours
to be spent on all this. Okay, So for the
forward looking and the revenue sharing with current athletes, each
school decides which athletes get what is there any sort
of calculator on that that they're providing a suggestion or
is it literally totally wild wild blasts at each school.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
It's each school is deciding how they want to do it.
Themselves and what their priorities are the gms that we've
talked about, you know, are they identifying specific sports, specific athletes.
Does each sport have a budget as to what they
can spend and how much? But it's certainly, I mean,
it's certainly going more towards the football, the men's basketball,
(16:09):
and then probably women's basketball is the next highest, and
then you'll see other you know, there may be volleyball
may be a significant score at a school, but it's
really yep, it may really come down to it goes
back to what Alicia said at the beginning of the
investment and the decision to invest and how school each
(16:30):
school is treating that.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah, I mean, man, this just feels like so fraught
because yes, you already knew if you were a coach
at a school if your program wasn't getting the same
resources or respect, But to have it put in black
and white when there is an opportunity to remedy that
where you can't hide behind, well, it'd be really hard.
We don't really have the space for a new facility
or we're not really in a position right now to
(16:53):
give you those resources you're asking for. This is a
windfall of money with which they can decide to remedy
some of them, and when they don't, it will be
a very clear message to presumably coaches of women's teams
or Olympic sports, that you don't matter as much and
that we will continue to invest in you in a
way that reflects whether we're getting back a massive amount
of revenue. Does that as of now revenue sharing need
(17:15):
to be in compliance with Title nine in any way?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I think there's a difference of opinion out there if
you talk to legal practitioners, but I think that under
Title nine as it was intended and as it has
played out in court cases, that money from a school
to a student athlete would be considered subject to Title
nine and would be need to be proportionately available based
(17:41):
on Title nine standards and the undergraduate male female population
at the institution. Now, there's probably disagreement out there, and
there's definitely I definitely don't believe that that's how it's
actually being allocated. But with when the Biden administer issued
a fact sheet right before at the end of its term,
(18:04):
it essentially said that, and that was rescinded by the
Trump administration. So this will ultimately likely be decided by
a court at some point as to how it applies.
But I believe it does apply based on the Title
nine jurisprudence that we have right now.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So I want to get to that fact sheet in
a little bit. But that was specific to NIL, right,
And this is for revenue sharing. So NIL in theory
is name, image, and likeness for individual athletes. Revenue sharing
is directly from a school, not a third party, to
its athletes. So would it be a different argument there
than that fact sheet is related to.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
So there is nil from third parties which would not
be subject to Title nine. But a lot of institutions
are calling the payments from the institution to the athlete
also a licensing pay so they're licensing the right to
use their name, image, and likeness. They may also have
(19:05):
a revenue share payment as well, or they may have
one or the other. So in terms of when you
say nil payments, I interpret that is also direct payments
from the school to the student athlete.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Got it, okay? So house versus NC double A is
sort of an extension of nil, but done through the
prism of the revenue driven to the school by the
athlete participation. Okay. Interesting okay, So Alicia a few more
outcomes to consider, like roster limits. There's a lot of
conversation about how house versus NC DOUBLEA impacts roster limits.
I have no idea what this is. Can you explain? Okay?
Speaker 3 (19:37):
So I think we have to understand. What these three
cases are alleging is that the NC DOUBLEA is in
violation of anti trust law. And I don't want to
put all of your listeners to sleep. So here is
the easiest way to understand anti trust law. Antitrust law
prohibits parties from agreeing to limit output. So we have
(19:58):
multiple parties, We have thousands of parties across the NCUBLEA,
and what's being alleged in these cases is that as
related to nil or as related to how much money
college athletes can be paid, they've agreed to limit output.
So the NCAA has been sued under antitrust allegations multiple times,
(20:20):
but recently since two thousand and eight with the abandoned
case over and over and over again. If you remember
one thing from the show, it's the last thing you
want as a business is to be sued for violating
antitrust law, because if you lose, you can face what
are called trouble damages, where the court takes the damage's
amount and they multiply it by three because they say
(20:43):
this so negatively impacts our commercial economy in the United
States that we want to stop this behavior. So what's
going on in part in the settlement is the NCUBA
knows that if it takes these cases to trial and loses,
the damages amount could very well be over the four
billion dollar amount. So they've negotiated a settlement and in
(21:07):
part they're kind of thinking what might be some other
problems where somebody can sue us down the road. And
right now, the NCAA has very strict limitations on how
many scholarships each team can award. So football is a
great example. Football currently can only allocate eighty five scholarships.
(21:29):
Well if they don't do the roster limits that they're
negotiating into this settlement. What you're very really facing down
the road is a football player saying, my sport generates
the most revenue for the school. I'm talented, I can't
have a scholarship because of this arbitrary rule. But the
track and field athlete whose sport loses money for this
(21:52):
school has a full scholarship. So really, what that portion
of the settlement looks to is a in part staving
off future antitrust lawsuits. It looks at which sports produce revenue.
But and Sarah, this is what I love about your
podcast is you talk a lot about the lack of
(22:13):
meaningful investiture into women's sports. Well, why are football and
basketball so great? Is it because they're superior sports to
everyone else and they're just far more paramount than women's golf. No,
it's because there's been a historic lack of investiture. And
so now because of this new roster limit, what's going
to happen, particularly for women's sport athletes, is some of
(22:35):
them are going to lose their position on rosters. And
that's really an unfortunate result of this settlement.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Right, this is something we've talked about with Title nine
in the past, and we'll get to the Title nine
aspect of that where people claim that men will lose
their teams and roster spots when they try to offer
the same opportunities to women and girls.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Right, if the settlement is approved, and all signs are
pointing to the likelihood that the settlement will be approved.
If the settlement is approved, then what will come into
effect is something called a roster limit. Right now, in
April twenty twenty five, what the NCAA has are scholarship limits,
(23:15):
and so what this means is Alabama, even if they
have a one hundred and five people on a roster,
only eighty five of those men can have a full scholarship,
and so there's a differential between people on the team
and the number of scholarships. What the House Settlement does
(23:37):
is it allows the possibility of every person on the
roster to be scholarshipped. The problem though, is presently in
twenty twenty four, some sports don't have roster limits. So
a great example of this is track and field and
cross country, where if there are enough talented people they
(24:00):
can all show up, they can compete in the sport,
very likely they're not going to receive a scholarship. So
what's going to come out of the House Settlement is
the roster size for every sport is going to be set. So,
for instance, tumbling is going to go from like six
scholarships that could be offered for tumbling to a roster
(24:22):
limit of fourteen. So before I hypothetically could have had
twenty tumblers but only six scholarships spread across those twenty people,
where now after the settlement, only fourteen people can be
on that roster. But the benefit to those fourteen people
is they could all have a full scholarship if the
(24:42):
school wants to do that. So we're creating more scholarships.
It's a net positive of four hundred and ninety scholarships
across all of the NCAA sports. The issue though, is
some people might lose their current non scholar shipped position
on a roster.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
So the ultimate argument there is that they can be
sued for anti trust if they don't allow you to
get a scholarship, but they can't be sued if they
don't allow you to have a roster spot because there's
no money involved in that.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
I think that's a decent way to think of it.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's why they're being told not to regulate scholarships anymore,
but they can regulate roster spots.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
That's right, Like the anti trust argument is stronger in
regulating roster spots than regulating the compensation element, which is
the scholarship.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
All this to say, though, there.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Still could be legal claims if the roster spots are reduced,
particularly through the lens of Title nine. So, as we
always say in college sports, there's going to be lawyers.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
Another discussed outcome is enhanced oversight of NIL deals. So
how will NIL coexist with revenue sharing? And I'm of
course talking about the NIL that isn't from the school itself.
(26:13):
As part of this house versus ncuble, I'm talking about
the sort of accepted NIL of outside brands or even
these boosters that pretend to be separate from the school.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Yeah, this is going to be one of the most
fascinating parts to watch be executed coming out of this settlement. So,
as we talked about at the outset, there has been
this historic belief in the world of college sports of
the idea of the amateur, that college athletes should pay
for the love of the game. But another key mission
point of the NCAA was this idea called competitive balance,
(26:45):
where every school should have a fair shot to win,
and those schools with more financial resources should not be
able to just spend boatloads of money to build powerhouse rosters.
So something that's been negotiated into this settlement is what's
called an NIL clearing house. Where a third party is
going to examine college athletes outside nil deals that are
(27:08):
valued over six hundred dollars. So the college athletes will
have to submit their contracts and report these deals to
their university, which will then submit it to the clearing house,
and the clearing house will examine the deal to determine
if the valuation of it aligns with fair market value
for that college athlete's endorsement rights or alternatively, if it
(27:31):
amounts to pay for play. So we're still figuring out
how this is going to be executed. Deloitte has been
secured to run the clearing house. There's a group of
ten division IE Power Conference athletics directors or people in
the athletics department who have formed this like transition committee,
if you will, to determine how this will run. But
(27:53):
this leaves open some ripeness for challenges because how do
you determine fair market value? And in the world of
a college basketball player. Subsequent to the house settlement, there's
an argument that Hayes fair market value might decline because
in some instances, these people are being paid more from
the collective today than they will under revenue sharing because
(28:16):
the revenue sharing plan sets that cap that carries across
the entire athletics department.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Okay, this is also making me think of how you
have a council basically to decide whether you're worth what
somebody wants to pay you, and particularly in women's sports,
that is ripe for some pretty serious conversations about what
your value is. I don't know if any of you
have seen this, but there is a full length episode
(28:44):
of Inside Amy Schumer called twelve Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer,
and the concept is an entire episode that's like the
movie Twelve Angry Men, but instead they're trying to decide
if she's attractive enough to be allowed to have her
own show. It is riotously funny and deeply deeply troubling
because of how realistic it is and how much it
points to the actual issues. But I'm imagining someone saying, oh,
(29:06):
Livy Dunne, I mean she's a gymnast, right, she's a
gymnast at this school. She's not in the Olympics. That's
way too much money, and then someone else having to
be like, yeah, but she's hot, like literally, that's it.
And that's what blows my mind is like, how are
you going to have. Are they going to have different
expertise in terms of, well, I'm the expert and whether
someone's hot enough to be paid this, and I'm the
expert in their gymnastics skill and whether they got enough
(29:29):
perfect tens Like.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Sarah, it's wild and listen, I have a lot of
respect for the NCAA. I love college sports. But here's
the thing is, we have this committee of ten athletics
directors who work for schools who have historically undervalued in sports,
and so now they're going to be the arbiters of
whether this dealer is fair or not. That this portion
(29:51):
of the settlement will be challenged, like mark my words,
because what it's doing is it's stimmying free market economics.
If somebody wants to pay me four million dollars to
promote a product that is that business's choice, we should
not stimmy the marketplace and slow the flow of opportunity.
That's what antitrust lass serves to protect against. And so
(30:15):
that this portion of the settlement frankly, is walking the
Association and its member institutions right back into another anti
trust suit.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Agreed. And yet also it does make sense that you
have to figure out how to regulate whether those payments
are just paid to play and someone funneling money to
somewhere that then says, oh, no, this was because we
really liked him and think he's very charismatic.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Here's what you've got to ask, though, is are those
type of deals really going to get reported? So we
assume that everyone is going to report their six hundred
dollars plus deals to the clearing house, the reality of
the situation is this underworld economy has existed in college
sports for decades where money has been funneled to top athletes,
(30:58):
and to think that this clear house is going to
eliminate that if there is pay for play taking place,
the reality of the situation is is that payment's not
going to get funneled through the NIL clearing house.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Right, Yeah, and we'll just go back to the old
system where everything's under the table. Kelly, you mentioned under
President Biden the Department of Educational least a fact sheet
there was guidance on Educational Institutions Title nine obligations when
it comes to NIL and from the fact sheet quote,
the fact that funds are provided by a private source
does not relieve a school of its responsibility to treat
(31:36):
all of its student athletes in a non discriminatory manner.
It is possible that NIL agreements between student athletes and
third parties will create similar disparities and therefore trigger as
schools Title nine obligations. Then when the Trump administration took over,
they were scinded that guidance. So under what laws or
expectations are institutions currently operating when it comes to NIL
(31:58):
and Title nine?
Speaker 2 (32:00):
So Title nine still is still a law despite the
fact sheet being rescinded. It's still good law, and there's
still litigation going on, and there's still a Department of
Education at least right now and an Office of Civil
Rights that it continues to do the work that they've
always done and obviously looks a little bit different with
(32:20):
the Trump administration. But what you quoted from the fact
sheet that has always been part of Title nine. And
whether you're a high school or you're a college, if
you get a donation from a donor that says I
want this to go to a video room for a
men's basketball program, that's fine. You can have a video
(32:45):
room for a men's basketball program, but that does not
then give you the permission to discriminate against women and
so you still have to treat the women's sports and
an equal way as you do the men's sports, and
under the treatment areas of Title nine.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Now that doesn't mean you have to give them their
own video room, but you do have to account for
the fact that the video room exists when you eventually
try to look at the equity and equality between programs.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Right, So there's under Title nine, there's three main areas
that from athletic athletics standpoint, there's your participation opportunities, and
you'll hear about three prongs and there's three different ways
you can try to comply. There's financial assistance, which is
where some of these payments come in. And then there's
treatment areas the laundry list of treatment areas, facilities, access
(33:39):
to tutors, medical treatment, travel. So in those treatment areas,
will Office of Civil Rights come in and say, simply
because you have a video room for the men's team
and not one for the women's team, is that in
and of itself a violation. No, but they'll do a
holistic review and if you can't otherwise demonstrate an offset
(34:01):
of something that women's team may be getting of a
similar size, then it could be a violation. The factory
didn't go so far as to say that all third
party payments. If a payment is directly from a third
party to an athlete versus funneling from the institution, then
(34:22):
that may be a different scrutiny. Title nine may not
apply if it's a true third party deal. But we
have all these collectives that are all very closely associated
with a particular institution, and under Title nine, there's a
concept called significant assistance, and significant there's factors that.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
Are looked at.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Not yet two legal least, but significant assistance is not
a high bar to get passed, and I think most
of these collectives would trigger that, and so institutions could
potentially be those payments from collectives could potentially be something
that does become a subject to Title nine. That's one
(35:00):
of the issues that's likely going to be litigated in
a court somewhere will decide that.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
So essentially it's similar to everything else under Title nine,
which is most people are probably not in compliance, but
unless you sue or threaten to sue, there probably won't
be someone intervening. It's just ratcheted up for this new
era because in part Title nine, when it was originally
written was, first of all, an education law that just
(35:27):
had an outsized impact on sports, but also didn't have
specific language for things like revenue sharing or nil because
they didn't exist. So those who want to move forward
ignoring Title nine can simply argue that that language isn't
part of it specifically, and those that want to argue
that they should abide by it can say, it's the
spirit of the law that would tell you that you
(35:49):
do need to continue to abide by it. Okay, so
you talked about the Department of Education. All of this
presumes that Title nine still exists, and I wonder, given
the threat to the Department of Education, which oversees Title
nind can Title nine exist without a Department of Education?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Kelly, Yes, it is still a federal law. It has
not it would if a Department of Education no longer existed.
It's possible the enforcement of that would get shifted to
the Department of Justice or a different federal agency. But
the existence of a law is different than the enforcement
(36:26):
of it if it's not being enforced, if there's not
an I hope that for institutions there is an incentive
to comply, even if their federal funding is not at stake,
but that's simply not always the case, and it's a
it's a risk analysis as to if we don't comply,
what's the potential outcome, what are the risks and the
benefits to us? So it would exist. But the tea
(36:48):
that does not, though, preclude somebody from pursuing litigation where
you do not have to go through OCR or the
Department of Education in order to make a claim that
you're or Title nine rights have been violated against an institution. Right.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
You talk about compliance too, So in the past, maybe
we would presume that a school not complying to allow
equal opportunity for its female athletes would be one that
the government might be eyeing up. But now it almost
feels like if a school chose to abide by the
(37:24):
Biden administration guidance in opposition to what the Trump administration
has said they would like to see happen, that they
might be at risk of Trump saying we're pulling your funds.
We don't like that you're treating women a certain way
based on something that the people before us thought was right. Uh, okay,
what are likely immediate impacts if the DOE the Department
(37:47):
of Education is gone? How would that immediate. Would it
be harder to try to file a lawsuit or fight
because you wouldn't know who technically is the teeth of
the law anymore?
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Kelly, No, if today, well, if I had standing to sue,
if I was an athlete at a school that I
thought I was being discriminated against under Title nine, I
can file a lawsuit against them in the court that
has jurisdiction over them. I do not have to involve
the Department of Education in that, So that will not
change the access to courts. Obviously, a court process takes
(38:22):
a lot longer. Sometimes the Department of Education OCR process
can take a while, but going through court can obviously
take a lot longer. To see that change. There is
there is a case, the Schroeder versus University of Oregon
case which has been UH is already been filed, and
(38:43):
this makes claims not directly about NIL, but within those
treatment areas that we talked about that from a public
one of the treatment aarias is publicity, and that women
have been discriminated against on the beach volleyball and rowing
programs at Oregon because of the disparate treatment in terms
(39:04):
of NIL. So we may see something dispositive come out
on that or something instructive as that case plays out.
But it's been going on for a bit and is
still occurring, so again, it won't be a fast change, Okay, Alicia.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
This year we finally saw women's college basketball conferences get
financial units. This is payouts for their teams appearing and
advancing in the NCAA tournament. For years, men's have gotten it.
It's a percentage of the television revenue made by the tournament.
It's a lesser number for the women, but we're glad
they're finally getting something. This helps schools be motivated to
invest in their women's programs and see them succeed. What's
(39:43):
the next financial unit's fight? Is there something that the
men get? I mean that Pandora's box, But is there
something specific that the men that NCAA women athletes, teams
or tournaments have historically been denied that should be addressed
or people are in the process of starting to address.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
I don't know about being in the process to start
to address, but the units are certainly a great move.
For the reason you said, we're increasingly seeing athletics departments
strategize around men's basketball because they realize that even with
the expanded college football playoff, the pathways to revenue are
(40:19):
pretty set for football, and so schools, especially with these
increased payments being created through the House settlement, they need
to find more money, and so they're kind of strategizing
around men's basketball and aligning themselves in conferences that will
allow them to gain greater men's basketball units. So the
beauty now of women's basketball offering units. Hypothetically that same
(40:44):
mindset or strategizing should trickle down or over to women's basketball.
The thing that I think needs to happen in order
to put women's basketball on the same stature of men's
basketball is you have to pull women's basketball out of
the television contract negotiation with the rest of the sports.
(41:05):
And I understand the association's position of they were trying
to gain leverage, but I think that's the next big
story to watch in terms of creating greater revenue for
women's basketball in and of itself. That doesn't address the
other women's sports in college sports, But we'll start with
basketball and we'll move from there.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
Yeah, for those who don't remember when they had an
independent investigation of the inequities between women's and men's basketball.
A few years ago. They ultimately found that there was
a massive valuation for the women's basketball tournament. But because
the rights for the women's championships, every one of them
was wrapped into a TV rights package for every championship
outside of men's basketball and college football, that essentially meant
(41:48):
that it was kind of just bunched in. And because
TBS owned the rights of the men's basketball, the money
that came from those rights packages actually could always be
calculated and written down as revenue for men's basketball. So
it also allowed people to argue that the women's basketball
tournament was a money loser even as they sold out
sponsorships every single year and it grew and grew and grew,
and this independent investigation said, no, actually, it's worth like
(42:10):
eighty million a year and will be one hundred and
twenty million a year in coming years. But to your point,
they are still doing those television packages for more money now.
They materially renegotiated for the first time in a long time,
but the amount of money now is still combining everyone
together instead of allowing them to have their own separate negotiation.
Right would completely change the financial and economic opportunity there absolutely, Okay,
(42:34):
I think people have learned enough, even though there's so
much more to learn before I let you go. Are
there any other items on the horizon that we should
be watching for that might have an outsized impact on
women's college sports that we haven't talked about, Alicia, I.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Think watching how the revenue share contracts go is really
the growing story under the bedrock. I've had the opportunity
to work with a number of college athletes to negotiate
or hammer out these revenue share contracts, and it's a
wild experience, Sarah, because since they're limited to this cap
across all sports, the number changes as you're going through
(43:12):
the negotiation day to day. So you can start the
negotiation and the number is x, but if a player
signs and that player's lawyer or council negotiated up, your
number might go down. And so I think a story
to watch is just what kind of council and what
kind of advising do athletes gain access to? Because to
(43:33):
your point earlier, this is a whole new world where
now you know, coaches arguably were on and opposing side
to athletes and recruiting, but they were more on the
same side. These are opposing legal strategies when we're talking
about a revenue share contract, and so looking at how
women are educated on that matter, looking at the representation
(43:56):
that comes to help them, I think will be a
critical job uncture for the growth of women's sports.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Okay, quick follow up on that. So you're saying that
when an athlete is coming into a school, they are
in advance negotiating the amount of the twenty million per
year revenue that they will receive. So essentially, now, these
collegiate rosters are sort of like salary capped professional sports
where if you tell the football team you have x
amount of this twenty million, they have to figure out
(44:24):
how to slot the players that they're signing. Oh my gosh.
But then do they have to essentially negotiate with incoming
players on a one year basis as opposed to their
four years at the school because they can't then account
for future changes.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
Well, and the number is going to comes to art Yeah,
because it's twenty two percent of the average revenue of
the Power Conference schools, and so if they make more
money than not, it's it's wild.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Oh my god. Yeah, he's so exhausting for me. I'm
so glad I'm not a lawyer. My parents are both lawyers.
There was a lot of a push for that. Thank
god I did do it. Okay, Kelly, what about you?
Anything else we should be watching for?
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I think, you know, one of the best ways to
make change and ensure that we continue to invest in
women's sports is having women leaders in these significant athletic departments.
The power five, A five day, four, whatever number you
want to use at this point, but you know, I
think if there are women that are leading some of
(45:26):
these programs, then change can be enacted. And at the
commissioner level of this, you know, the major conferences in
the mid majors, I think watching how we see if
we see more women in those leadership roles, I think
will be very important for women's sports in college moving forward.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Well, you both gave me so many answers, and yet
I believe I have more questions than answers at this
point because it's just such a new space. But this
was extremely helpful. I know so much more than before.
So thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Yes, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Thanks so much to Kelly and Alicia for joining us.
Also want to give you a quick update regarding the
House versus NCAA case, So a federal judge issued a
fourteen day deadline on Wednesday for the defendants to come
to an agreement on how to implement roster sized limits
or they'll risk the rejection of the settlement. So we'll
be keeping our eyes on it the next couple weeks
and let you know how things unfold. We have to
(46:25):
take another break when we come back, the annual heartbreak.
WNBA fans and players are never quite prepared for welcome
back slices. It's time for another what the fact? Okay,
(46:48):
So the WNBA season is rapidly approaching and the WNBA
Draft took place last Monday. Page Beckers selected number one
overall by the Dallas Wings, and of course we are
super excited to watch her game grow this summer. But
what about the players who went later in the first round?
What about the second and third rounders, the players who
are walking into training camps with teams that already have
(47:09):
the pieces they need. Unfortunately, many of the college hoopers
who get drafted don't make a team roster, and it's
an annual heartbreaker for fans and players alike, no matter
how many times were warned it might happen. For example,
of the thirty six players drafted last year, only fifteen
played in at least one game. One year earlier, just
nineteen of sixteen made it to game day. And it's
(47:30):
been this way for a long time. Per analysis from
the Associated Press, between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty three,
just sixty five percent of draftees have played in a
single WNBA game. So what, Gibbs. Why is the WNBA
the hardest league in the US to make well? First
of all, WNBA rosters are small. Each team can include
up to twelve players, but the reality is that most
(47:51):
teams carry just eleven due to salary cap constraints. In comparison,
MNBA rosters can include fifteen players plus three players on
two way contracts. Those are players who are allowed to
go back and forth between the G League and the MNBA.
Now there is a bright spot here. The w is
actively expanding, which means that the number of roster spots
available to draftees is increasing. With the addition of the
(48:14):
Golden State Valkyries this upcoming season, there are one hundred
and fifty six total roster spots in the league, and
after the Toronto Tempo become draft eligible in twenty twenty six,
that total will bump up to one sixty eight. Hopefully
that'll mean more rookies end up in the mix for
the long haul, for both the good of the game
and the sanity of the fans who follow these supers
to the pros from college. This what the fact brought
(48:35):
to you by Elf Beauty. And here's another fact. Companies
with diverse leadership make more money. Elf Beauty credits part
of its success to its diverse board seventy eight percent
women and forty four percent diverse, and because of that diversity,
Elf has delivered twenty four consecutive quarters of sales growth,
the only cosmetics brand to grow market share every single quarter.
(48:58):
Elf is about including everyone, because when you do, everyone wins.
Learn more about what Elf Beauty is doing to help
diversify corporate boards, visit changethboardgame dot com. We always love
to hear from you slices, so hit us up on email.
Good game at wondermedianetwork dot com, and don't forget to subscribe,
rate and review. It's real easy. Watch Wnba Hooper Temmy
(49:19):
Fagbenley in the Children of Blood and Bone movie rating
five out of five. What Can't She Do? Review Now
producer Mesh says, I've been living in a hole because
I haven't read the New York Times bestselling novel Children
of Blood and Bone, part of author Tomy et Eemi's
Legacy of Arisha's series. It's one of their faves, packed
from top to tail with action and adventure set in
(49:40):
a fictional West African kingdom where magic and danger coexist,
and Mish obviously isn't the only superfan because the novel
is being adapted into a film directed by Gina Prince Bythewood,
the woman who directed Love and Basketball and The Woman King.
Film is set to release in early twenty twenty seven.
And WNBA Golden State Valkyries forward Temmy fag Benley is
a member of the cast. Hooper and actress a true
(50:03):
renaissance woman, and she'll be acting alongside some serious legends
Biola Davis, Cynthia Arrivo, Idris Elba, Regina King and Moore.
No word yet on what character she's going to play,
but we know she's going to knock it out of
the park and arguably the coolest part book author at
Aemi and Hooper fag Benley were classmates back at Harvard University.
Small world, and as Fag Benley put it, full circle,
(50:26):
We'll link to our Instagram post about the film and
our show notes, and we'll add the book to our
Good Game book club and my ever expanding stack of
to read when I get a damn vacation books. Now
it's your turn, y'all, rate and review. Thanks for listening.
See you next week when we celebrate our two hundredth episode,
Good Game, Kelly, Good Game, Alicia, you aforementioned stack of books,
(50:49):
stop taunting me. Good Game with Sarah Spain is an
iHeart women's sports production in partnership with Deep Blue Sports
and Entertainment. You can find us on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Production by
Wonder Media Network, our producers are Alex Azzie and Misha Jones.
Our executive producers are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan,
(51:12):
and Emily Rudder. Our editors are Emily Rutterer, Britney Martinez,
and Grace Lynch. Our associate producer is Lucy Jones and
I'm your host Sarah Spain
Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we are
stoked because it's sixty degrees in Chicago today and honestly,
I really don't care if your area has been sixty
plus for some time. Now, just let me have this, Okay,
It's Friday, April twenty fifth, Happy Friday Slices. On today's show,
we'll be talking to attorneys and sports laws specialists Kelly
Fagan and Alicia Jessop about the House versus NCAA class
(00:23):
action antitrust lawsuit, ways that the suit might impact women's
college sports, and how the Trump administration's attack on Title
nine could affect payouts to plaintiffs. There is about to
be a sea change in women's sports, y'all. This is
a must listen to know what's coming down the pike. Plus,
the PWHL is back and sprinting towards the playoffs. Simone
Biles is a maybe for LA twenty twenty eight, and
(00:45):
WNBA draftees face some stiff odds. It's all coming up
right after this Welcome back slices, Here's what you need
to know today in hockey news. The PWHL picks back
(01:09):
up tomorrow after observing an international break for most of April.
The Montreal Victoire returns sitting at the top of the table,
having already clinched a playoff spot. Meanwhile, last year's champs,
the Minnesota Frost are sitting just five points ahead of
last place New York. We're firmly in the home stretch
of the regular season, which ends on May third, and
only the top four teams in the league make the playoffs.
(01:29):
Beginning the week of May fifth, there are two games
to tune into on Saturday, beginning at twelve Eastern, with
Montreal at Ottawa, followed by Toronto at Boston at two
pm Eastern. You can catch both those matchups streaming live
on the PWHL's YouTube channel, and we'll link to the
full league schedule in our show notes. In Soccer News,
friend of the Show and former US women's national team
player Lauren Holliday and her husband MNBA star Drew Holiday,
(01:53):
are now investors in the NWSLS North Carolina Courage. You
might remember Lauren was a founding investor in Angel City FC,
but she is divested from the club. The Courage announced
Lauren and her husband as the newest members of its
ownership group on Wednesday, and per the team's release, the
former footy star will also assume a role as an
advisor and ambassador with the club, directly influencing on field, business,
community and player initiative decisions. Now we hear a good game.
(02:16):
Love to see that news, in particular because you might
recall our November twenty seventh episode Big Meddling Energy with Lauren,
in which she talked at length about her desire to
be a change maker in the sports ownership space. So
kudos to the Holidays for putting their money where their
mouths are. Can't wait to see how their financial contribution
and Lauren's breadth of experience benefit the club. More soccer.
(02:37):
Seven NWSL games to check out this weekend, beginning tonight
with the Utah Royals visiting the Houston Dash that's on
NWSL Plus. Then we've got angel CITYFC visiting the Orlando
Pride on Prime Video. Both those games kick off at
eight pm Eastern. We'll link to the full NWSL weekend
schedule in our show notes. We've also got Pro Volleyball
Federation Action and Women's Elite rugby games going down tonight
(03:00):
and over the weekend, so we'll link to those League
schedules in our show notes as well, and don't forget
the Chevron Championship. The first LPGA major of the year
continues today and all weekend. You can watch on the
Golf Channel and ESPN Plus to College hoops, where the
transfer portal officially closed on Wednesday. Graduate transfers can still
enter the portal at any time, but barring a coaching change,
(03:21):
anyone else who wants to switch squads will have to
sit out a season or apply to the NCAA for
a waiver. There's no deadline for players who did enter
the portal to commit to a new school, though, so
we're still a waiting word on a few players destinations.
Some interesting stats per on three dot com. As of
Thursday morning, fifteen hundred and fifteen players entered the portal,
(03:41):
five hundred seventy two have committed to a new team,
and thirty two have withdrawn their names from the portal
fifteen hundred and fifteen. That's thirty percent of players entering
the portal this season. Unreal to Gymnastics News, Simone Biles,
the most decorated gymnast of all time, doesn't know yet
if she'll compete at the LA twenty twenty eight Olympics.
The twenty eight year old told French sports daily lay
(04:02):
Keep that she does plan on being present for the games,
but she's not sure if she'll be on the mat
or cheering in the crowd. At the Paris Olympics, she
brought her total metal tally up to seven gold and
eleven overall medals, but said afterward her body shut down
on her upon returning to the Olympic village in Paris.
She totally keep her body quote literally collapsed. I was
sick for ten days end quote. For her to compete
(04:23):
in La Biles said, quote, it would have to really
excite me. Biles also praised fellow international gymnastics superstar Rebecca Andrage,
saying that the sport only needs one of them and
that the next generation of gymnasts will quote knock at
the door and everything will start again. Now. Selfishly, we
really hope she wants to compete by the time twenty
twenty eight rolls around, but we also wanted to do
(04:44):
what's best for her. We're rooting for you either way, Simone. Finally,
in Fashion News, tennis superstar Cocoa Goff is teaming up
with new Balance and mew Mew on a new collection.
She'll wear a different version of the cllab for each
upcoming tournament, with unique colourways inspired by each event, and
she'll write a different custom co branded version of her
signature shoe, the Coco CG two, reimagined by New Balance
(05:06):
and Mew Mew. Normies like us can snag the looks
beginning in September. Quick shout out to our fearless leader
Laura Kurrenti at Deep Blue at the Business of Women's
Sports Summit on Tuesday, she teased a return trip to
Sport Beach in can and today Deep Blue announced more details.
It's going to be a three day experience from June
sixteenth to eighteenth, called the Deep Blue Women's Sports Yacht Club,
(05:28):
supported by Genius Sports and JP Morgan Chase and featuring
the Wellness Oasis. It's going to be an immersive beachside experience.
Keep leading and we will follow Laura, especially if it's
to the French Riviera. We got to take a quick
break when we come back. We're talking Legal to you
with Kelly Fagan and Alicia Jessop who we caught up
with last week. Keep it here joining us now. She's
(05:57):
a co founder and chair of the Sports Law practic
just at Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim Law. A sports
law attorney specializing in the evolving legal landscape of collegiate athletics,
including NCAA compliance Title nine issues, hazing, in misconduct, investigations,
name image and likeness, and revenue sharing matters. She represents universities, colleges,
student athletes, coaches, and administrators. She previously worked in the
(06:18):
NCAA's Enforcement Department and graduated summa cum laude from Indiana
University and summa cum laude from Indiana University McKinney School
of Law. A collegiate golfer before injury sidelined her, It's
Kelly Fagan.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Hi, Kelly, Hi, Sarah, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
What was your best club?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I was a pretty good putter.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Woh's. That's the toughest one in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I putt left handed and swing right handed, so
a little bit odd.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
A woman of mystery joining her. She's a sport law
professor at Pepperdine and attorney at Daniel, Ebling, Machia and Cohen,
representing professional athletes, agencies, broadcasters and startups, and matters including
contract negotiation, sports sponsorship negotiation, NILC, contract drafting and review,
and more. The host of the Ruling Sports podcast and
founder of Ruling Sports, a website examining the success of athletes, executives,
(07:08):
and entrepreneurs beyond the game. She's a graduate of the
Colorado School of Minds, with her jd from Chapman University
Fowler School of Law. She shares my love for Wahiki
Island in New Zealand. It's Alicia Jessa Pilishaw.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Yes, I love that. We could do a whole episode
on that.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
If you want to go just on Mudbrick the most
magical place in the world.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
It is, it really is.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
I want to go back asap.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Thanks so much to both of you for joining me.
I'm so excited to talk about this. There is so
much to talk about in terms of the changing college
sports landscape, and we need experts that know all the
nitty gritty who can then dumb it down for us
lay people and help us understand. So I wouldn't say
exactly talk to me like I'm a fifth grader or
a five year old, but like some somewhere a little
bit above that would be good for all of us.
(07:50):
That are just trying to understand all this change in
the space. And I want to start with something we've
talked about here on the show a few times but
not in a lot of detail, and that's House versus
nc So, Kelly, can you explain the House versus NCAA case?
Who is House, what's at stake, and what's the ultimate ruling?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
If the settlement is approved, then sort of two big
components to it. One is forward looking and one is
backward looking. The backward looking component is about two point
eight billion dollars in damages that will be paid. It's
structured in the settlement as to how it will get
paid out, but a majority of it will go to
(08:30):
football players over the past from sixteen to twenty twenty four,
and then there will be a percentage for men's basketball,
women's basketball, and then all other sports. The forward looking
portion of it is injunctive relief that will last ten
years and will allow institutions to pay if those institutions
(08:53):
that are not parties opt in or the defendant conferences
are all automatically opted in, but allow them to pay
directly inil payments or revenue share payments to student athletes
up to that twenty point five million pool for the
first year, and then that will be increased over time
as revenues increase.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
So houses one person, he was a former Arizona State swimmer.
He sued the nc DOUBLEA and its power conferences and
said that they were violating antitrust laws, that the prevention
of nil, name image and likeness was anti competitive, and
ultimately it's trying to upend this long held belief that
amateurism is what's at the core of NCAA sports. And
(09:36):
then once anybody's allowed to get paid, everything falls apart.
The only people who can get paid are coaches and
administrators and schools and everybody else getting rich. But now
we're trying to figure out if college athletes can be
directly paid by their schools. And this is an addition
and separate from NIL, which is name image, and like this,
this is actually a school itself paying its athletes understanding
(09:57):
all the revenue that they bring to that school. And
like you mentioned, particularly football basketball, we'll get into how
it's being doled out, But Alicia, like big picture before
we get into the nitty gritty of back pay and
roster limits. What are some of the most obvious outcomes
of House versus NCAA on women's college sports.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Well, I think the most obvious outcome is something that
you alluded to. The NCAA, founded in nineteen oh six,
historically had this amateurism principle where there was a clear
demarcation between no compensation to college athletes to very quickly
we're zooming into a college sport landscape where the schools
are going to directly be paying the college athletes. So
(10:39):
as it relates to women's sport in particular, the question becomes,
are the schools going to take this opportunity to reshape
a landscape that's truly built on fairness, equity and investing
in the power and sustainability of women's sports, or are
they going to continue the historic practice of underinvesting in
(11:00):
women's sports. And how they allocate these revenue share payments
so negotiated into the settlement, they're not going to like that.
I call it this, but there's a cap. There's a
limit on what schools can pay their college athletes. And
for the twenty five twenty six school year, it amounts
to roughly twenty one million dollars, give or take. And
(11:20):
so that twenty one million dollars athletics directors, presidents of universities,
and general managers, which we now have in college sports.
They need to decide how to divvy up that fund
and it will be seen how the money goes to
women's for athletes.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah. I mean, my brain is like exploding thinking about
all the things that have to be in play, because
it's not just men's versus women's athletes. But is it
starters versus bench players? Is it? At our school we
prioritize football, So if you want to come play here,
we're actually gonna have our football players way more than
any other school does because they're more carefully allocating it
also to basketball and other things. What about schools that
(11:57):
don't even have football? That removes hundreds of players to
take money, and that means the basketball players would probably
get a higher percentage of that twenty one million. So
wild wild west, right, because right now, Alicia, they're not
dictating how schools can decide to whom they give the money.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
That's absolutely right, Sarah. So I use this example in
class where let's say there's just this phenomenal quarterback and
the school believes this quarterback could win a Heisman lead
to a national championship, and their's solid research that shows
the financial growth that comes to a university when those
two things happen. An athlete wins a Heisman a national
(12:34):
championship is one. It drives up attendance, it drives up applications,
it drives up donorship. So there's a possibility. I don't
think this will happen, but there is a possibility where
a school could say, you know, we're going to take
this entire cap and we're going to allocate it to
this one athlete because we believe he or maybe someday
she can generate massive revenue growth and a positive ROI.
(12:58):
So the settlement it's self doesn't put any quote guardrails, limitations, rules,
or structure around how the payments are allocated, which raises
some questions in the world of say Title nine, which
I think we might discuss absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And also it just fundamentally shifts what we think of
college sports being as part of the larger educational and
academic experience. It really starts to muddy the water about
how these aren't just minor leagues that are operating under
the guise of a larger institution, particularly when some of
these schools that have massive football programs with waterfalls in
(13:36):
their locker room, have parts of their library falling out
of the ceiling, and how they're deciding where to put
their money and resources. Okay, so let's dig in a
little more, Kelly, let's briefly talk about a few specific elements,
starting with back pay for past athletes. You mentioned this
is the backward looking element. How will that be decided
and handed out?
Speaker 2 (13:56):
So the settlement specifies how that will be paid to
those athletes that are in the class. Seventy five percent
will go to football, twenty percent will go to men's
and women's basketball, and five percent to the remaining sports.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
And can each school decide that, So, if you have
a more successful women's basketball team than men's or if
you don't have a certain kind of program, is this
backpay being handled the same way? So it's really up
to each individual school to decide who gets what.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Claimants there's a website they can go to and figure
out how much they will get paid. So the settlement
determines it, and the institutions are supplying information about who
is part of the class and who may be entitled
to it, But it does not necessarily depend on your success.
It's governed by the settlement and through the claims administrator.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
So in theory, if you won a national championship, you
brought a ton of revenue as a result, you might
be paid as someone on a team that had zero wins.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, and there is an opportunity for the people in
the it's in the class to object and say they
don't agree, which there have been objections, and they can
choose to opt out and try to secure that value
that they think they've had they've they've garnered to the
school through their performance. But it's definitely that's that's not
(15:18):
a smooth of a road. Is I'll just take my
money that I'm getting through a class and move on.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Goodness, this is messy. This is keeping all you lawyers
in business. I'll tell you that there many many hours
to be spent on all this. Okay, So for the
forward looking and the revenue sharing with current athletes, each
school decides which athletes get what is there any sort
of calculator on that that they're providing a suggestion or
is it literally totally wild wild blasts at each school.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
It's each school is deciding how they want to do it.
Themselves and what their priorities are the gms that we've
talked about, you know, are they identifying specific sports, specific athletes.
Does each sport have a budget as to what they
can spend and how much? But it's certainly, I mean,
it's certainly going more towards the football, the men's basketball,
(16:09):
and then probably women's basketball is the next highest, and
then you'll see other you know, there may be volleyball
may be a significant score at a school, but it's
really yep, it may really come down to it goes
back to what Alicia said at the beginning of the
investment and the decision to invest and how school each
(16:30):
school is treating that.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Yeah, I mean, man, this just feels like so fraught
because yes, you already knew if you were a coach
at a school if your program wasn't getting the same
resources or respect, But to have it put in black
and white when there is an opportunity to remedy that
where you can't hide behind, well, it'd be really hard.
We don't really have the space for a new facility
or we're not really in a position right now to
(16:53):
give you those resources you're asking for. This is a
windfall of money with which they can decide to remedy
some of them, and when they don't, it will be
a very clear message to presumably coaches of women's teams
or Olympic sports, that you don't matter as much and
that we will continue to invest in you in a
way that reflects whether we're getting back a massive amount
of revenue. Does that as of now revenue sharing need
(17:15):
to be in compliance with Title nine in any way?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I think there's a difference of opinion out there if
you talk to legal practitioners, but I think that under
Title nine as it was intended and as it has
played out in court cases, that money from a school
to a student athlete would be considered subject to Title
nine and would be need to be proportionately available based
(17:41):
on Title nine standards and the undergraduate male female population
at the institution. Now, there's probably disagreement out there, and
there's definitely I definitely don't believe that that's how it's
actually being allocated. But with when the Biden administer issued
a fact sheet right before at the end of its term,
(18:04):
it essentially said that, and that was rescinded by the
Trump administration. So this will ultimately likely be decided by
a court at some point as to how it applies.
But I believe it does apply based on the Title
nine jurisprudence that we have right now.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
So I want to get to that fact sheet in
a little bit. But that was specific to NIL, right,
And this is for revenue sharing. So NIL in theory
is name, image, and likeness for individual athletes. Revenue sharing
is directly from a school, not a third party, to
its athletes. So would it be a different argument there
than that fact sheet is related to.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
So there is nil from third parties which would not
be subject to Title nine. But a lot of institutions
are calling the payments from the institution to the athlete
also a licensing pay so they're licensing the right to
use their name, image, and likeness. They may also have
(19:05):
a revenue share payment as well, or they may have
one or the other. So in terms of when you
say nil payments, I interpret that is also direct payments
from the school to the student athlete.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Got it, okay? So house versus NC double A is
sort of an extension of nil, but done through the
prism of the revenue driven to the school by the
athlete participation. Okay. Interesting okay, So Alicia a few more
outcomes to consider, like roster limits. There's a lot of
conversation about how house versus NC DOUBLEA impacts roster limits.
I have no idea what this is. Can you explain? Okay?
Speaker 3 (19:37):
So I think we have to understand. What these three
cases are alleging is that the NC DOUBLEA is in
violation of anti trust law. And I don't want to
put all of your listeners to sleep. So here is
the easiest way to understand anti trust law. Antitrust law
prohibits parties from agreeing to limit output. So we have
(19:58):
multiple parties, We have thousands of parties across the NCUBLEA,
and what's being alleged in these cases is that as
related to nil or as related to how much money
college athletes can be paid, they've agreed to limit output.
So the NCAA has been sued under antitrust allegations multiple times,
(20:20):
but recently since two thousand and eight with the abandoned
case over and over and over again. If you remember
one thing from the show, it's the last thing you
want as a business is to be sued for violating
antitrust law, because if you lose, you can face what
are called trouble damages, where the court takes the damage's
amount and they multiply it by three because they say
(20:43):
this so negatively impacts our commercial economy in the United
States that we want to stop this behavior. So what's
going on in part in the settlement is the NCUBA
knows that if it takes these cases to trial and loses,
the damages amount could very well be over the four
billion dollar amount. So they've negotiated a settlement and in
(21:07):
part they're kind of thinking what might be some other
problems where somebody can sue us down the road. And
right now, the NCAA has very strict limitations on how
many scholarships each team can award. So football is a
great example. Football currently can only allocate eighty five scholarships.
(21:29):
Well if they don't do the roster limits that they're
negotiating into this settlement. What you're very really facing down
the road is a football player saying, my sport generates
the most revenue for the school. I'm talented, I can't
have a scholarship because of this arbitrary rule. But the
track and field athlete whose sport loses money for this
(21:52):
school has a full scholarship. So really, what that portion
of the settlement looks to is a in part staving
off future antitrust lawsuits. It looks at which sports produce revenue.
But and Sarah, this is what I love about your
podcast is you talk a lot about the lack of
(22:13):
meaningful investiture into women's sports. Well, why are football and
basketball so great? Is it because they're superior sports to
everyone else and they're just far more paramount than women's golf. No,
it's because there's been a historic lack of investiture. And
so now because of this new roster limit, what's going
to happen, particularly for women's sport athletes, is some of
(22:35):
them are going to lose their position on rosters. And
that's really an unfortunate result of this settlement.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Right, this is something we've talked about with Title nine
in the past, and we'll get to the Title nine
aspect of that where people claim that men will lose
their teams and roster spots when they try to offer
the same opportunities to women and girls.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Right, if the settlement is approved, and all signs are
pointing to the likelihood that the settlement will be approved.
If the settlement is approved, then what will come into
effect is something called a roster limit. Right now, in
April twenty twenty five, what the NCAA has are scholarship limits,
(23:15):
and so what this means is Alabama, even if they
have a one hundred and five people on a roster,
only eighty five of those men can have a full scholarship,
and so there's a differential between people on the team
and the number of scholarships. What the House Settlement does
(23:37):
is it allows the possibility of every person on the
roster to be scholarshipped. The problem though, is presently in
twenty twenty four, some sports don't have roster limits. So
a great example of this is track and field and
cross country, where if there are enough talented people they
(24:00):
can all show up, they can compete in the sport,
very likely they're not going to receive a scholarship. So
what's going to come out of the House Settlement is
the roster size for every sport is going to be set. So,
for instance, tumbling is going to go from like six
scholarships that could be offered for tumbling to a roster
(24:22):
limit of fourteen. So before I hypothetically could have had
twenty tumblers but only six scholarships spread across those twenty people,
where now after the settlement, only fourteen people can be
on that roster. But the benefit to those fourteen people
is they could all have a full scholarship if the
(24:42):
school wants to do that. So we're creating more scholarships.
It's a net positive of four hundred and ninety scholarships
across all of the NCAA sports. The issue though, is
some people might lose their current non scholar shipped position
on a roster.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
So the ultimate argument there is that they can be
sued for anti trust if they don't allow you to
get a scholarship, but they can't be sued if they
don't allow you to have a roster spot because there's
no money involved in that.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
I think that's a decent way to think of it.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's why they're being told not to regulate scholarships anymore,
but they can regulate roster spots.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
That's right, Like the anti trust argument is stronger in
regulating roster spots than regulating the compensation element, which is
the scholarship.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
All this to say, though, there.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Still could be legal claims if the roster spots are reduced,
particularly through the lens of Title nine. So, as we
always say in college sports, there's going to be lawyers.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
Another discussed outcome is enhanced oversight of NIL deals. So
how will NIL coexist with revenue sharing? And I'm of
course talking about the NIL that isn't from the school itself.
(26:13):
As part of this house versus ncuble, I'm talking about
the sort of accepted NIL of outside brands or even
these boosters that pretend to be separate from the school.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Yeah, this is going to be one of the most
fascinating parts to watch be executed coming out of this settlement. So,
as we talked about at the outset, there has been
this historic belief in the world of college sports of
the idea of the amateur, that college athletes should pay
for the love of the game. But another key mission
point of the NCAA was this idea called competitive balance,
(26:45):
where every school should have a fair shot to win,
and those schools with more financial resources should not be
able to just spend boatloads of money to build powerhouse rosters.
So something that's been negotiated into this settlement is what's
called an NIL clearing house. Where a third party is
going to examine college athletes outside nil deals that are
(27:08):
valued over six hundred dollars. So the college athletes will
have to submit their contracts and report these deals to
their university, which will then submit it to the clearing house,
and the clearing house will examine the deal to determine
if the valuation of it aligns with fair market value
for that college athlete's endorsement rights or alternatively, if it
(27:31):
amounts to pay for play. So we're still figuring out
how this is going to be executed. Deloitte has been
secured to run the clearing house. There's a group of
ten division IE Power Conference athletics directors or people in
the athletics department who have formed this like transition committee,
if you will, to determine how this will run. But
(27:53):
this leaves open some ripeness for challenges because how do
you determine fair market value? And in the world of
a college basketball player. Subsequent to the house settlement, there's
an argument that Hayes fair market value might decline because
in some instances, these people are being paid more from
the collective today than they will under revenue sharing because
(28:16):
the revenue sharing plan sets that cap that carries across
the entire athletics department.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Okay, this is also making me think of how you
have a council basically to decide whether you're worth what
somebody wants to pay you, and particularly in women's sports,
that is ripe for some pretty serious conversations about what
your value is. I don't know if any of you
have seen this, but there is a full length episode
(28:44):
of Inside Amy Schumer called twelve Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer,
and the concept is an entire episode that's like the
movie Twelve Angry Men, but instead they're trying to decide
if she's attractive enough to be allowed to have her
own show. It is riotously funny and deeply deeply troubling
because of how realistic it is and how much it
points to the actual issues. But I'm imagining someone saying, oh,
(29:06):
Livy Dunne, I mean she's a gymnast, right, she's a
gymnast at this school. She's not in the Olympics. That's
way too much money, and then someone else having to
be like, yeah, but she's hot, like literally, that's it.
And that's what blows my mind is like, how are
you going to have. Are they going to have different
expertise in terms of, well, I'm the expert and whether
someone's hot enough to be paid this, and I'm the
expert in their gymnastics skill and whether they got enough
(29:29):
perfect tens Like.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Sarah, it's wild and listen, I have a lot of
respect for the NCAA. I love college sports. But here's
the thing is, we have this committee of ten athletics
directors who work for schools who have historically undervalued in sports,
and so now they're going to be the arbiters of
whether this dealer is fair or not. That this portion
(29:51):
of the settlement will be challenged, like mark my words,
because what it's doing is it's stimmying free market economics.
If somebody wants to pay me four million dollars to
promote a product that is that business's choice, we should
not stimmy the marketplace and slow the flow of opportunity.
That's what antitrust lass serves to protect against. And so
(30:15):
that this portion of the settlement frankly, is walking the
Association and its member institutions right back into another anti
trust suit.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Agreed. And yet also it does make sense that you
have to figure out how to regulate whether those payments
are just paid to play and someone funneling money to
somewhere that then says, oh, no, this was because we
really liked him and think he's very charismatic.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Here's what you've got to ask, though, is are those
type of deals really going to get reported? So we
assume that everyone is going to report their six hundred
dollars plus deals to the clearing house, the reality of
the situation is this underworld economy has existed in college
sports for decades where money has been funneled to top athletes,
(30:58):
and to think that this clear house is going to
eliminate that if there is pay for play taking place,
the reality of the situation is is that payment's not
going to get funneled through the NIL clearing house.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Right, Yeah, and we'll just go back to the old
system where everything's under the table. Kelly, you mentioned under
President Biden the Department of Educational least a fact sheet
there was guidance on Educational Institutions Title nine obligations when
it comes to NIL and from the fact sheet quote,
the fact that funds are provided by a private source
does not relieve a school of its responsibility to treat
(31:36):
all of its student athletes in a non discriminatory manner.
It is possible that NIL agreements between student athletes and
third parties will create similar disparities and therefore trigger as
schools Title nine obligations. Then when the Trump administration took over,
they were scinded that guidance. So under what laws or
expectations are institutions currently operating when it comes to NIL
(31:58):
and Title nine?
Speaker 2 (32:00):
So Title nine still is still a law despite the
fact sheet being rescinded. It's still good law, and there's
still litigation going on, and there's still a Department of
Education at least right now and an Office of Civil
Rights that it continues to do the work that they've
always done and obviously looks a little bit different with
(32:20):
the Trump administration. But what you quoted from the fact
sheet that has always been part of Title nine. And
whether you're a high school or you're a college, if
you get a donation from a donor that says I
want this to go to a video room for a
men's basketball program, that's fine. You can have a video
(32:45):
room for a men's basketball program, but that does not
then give you the permission to discriminate against women and
so you still have to treat the women's sports and
an equal way as you do the men's sports, and
under the treatment areas of Title nine.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Now that doesn't mean you have to give them their
own video room, but you do have to account for
the fact that the video room exists when you eventually
try to look at the equity and equality between programs.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Right, So there's under Title nine, there's three main areas
that from athletic athletics standpoint, there's your participation opportunities, and
you'll hear about three prongs and there's three different ways
you can try to comply. There's financial assistance, which is
where some of these payments come in. And then there's
treatment areas the laundry list of treatment areas, facilities, access
(33:39):
to tutors, medical treatment, travel. So in those treatment areas,
will Office of Civil Rights come in and say, simply
because you have a video room for the men's team
and not one for the women's team, is that in
and of itself a violation. No, but they'll do a
holistic review and if you can't otherwise demonstrate an offset
(34:01):
of something that women's team may be getting of a
similar size, then it could be a violation. The factory
didn't go so far as to say that all third
party payments. If a payment is directly from a third
party to an athlete versus funneling from the institution, then
(34:22):
that may be a different scrutiny. Title nine may not
apply if it's a true third party deal. But we
have all these collectives that are all very closely associated
with a particular institution, and under Title nine, there's a
concept called significant assistance, and significant there's factors that.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
Are looked at.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Not yet two legal least, but significant assistance is not
a high bar to get passed, and I think most
of these collectives would trigger that, and so institutions could
potentially be those payments from collectives could potentially be something
that does become a subject to Title nine. That's one
(35:00):
of the issues that's likely going to be litigated in
a court somewhere will decide that.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
So essentially it's similar to everything else under Title nine,
which is most people are probably not in compliance, but
unless you sue or threaten to sue, there probably won't
be someone intervening. It's just ratcheted up for this new
era because in part Title nine, when it was originally
written was, first of all, an education law that just
(35:27):
had an outsized impact on sports, but also didn't have
specific language for things like revenue sharing or nil because
they didn't exist. So those who want to move forward
ignoring Title nine can simply argue that that language isn't
part of it specifically, and those that want to argue
that they should abide by it can say, it's the
spirit of the law that would tell you that you
(35:49):
do need to continue to abide by it. Okay, so
you talked about the Department of Education. All of this
presumes that Title nine still exists, and I wonder, given
the threat to the Department of Education, which oversees Title
nind can Title nine exist without a Department of Education?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Kelly, Yes, it is still a federal law. It has
not it would if a Department of Education no longer existed.
It's possible the enforcement of that would get shifted to
the Department of Justice or a different federal agency. But
the existence of a law is different than the enforcement
(36:26):
of it if it's not being enforced, if there's not
an I hope that for institutions there is an incentive
to comply, even if their federal funding is not at stake,
but that's simply not always the case, and it's a
it's a risk analysis as to if we don't comply,
what's the potential outcome, what are the risks and the
benefits to us? So it would exist. But the tea
(36:48):
that does not, though, preclude somebody from pursuing litigation where
you do not have to go through OCR or the
Department of Education in order to make a claim that
you're or Title nine rights have been violated against an institution. Right.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
You talk about compliance too, So in the past, maybe
we would presume that a school not complying to allow
equal opportunity for its female athletes would be one that
the government might be eyeing up. But now it almost
feels like if a school chose to abide by the
(37:24):
Biden administration guidance in opposition to what the Trump administration
has said they would like to see happen, that they
might be at risk of Trump saying we're pulling your funds.
We don't like that you're treating women a certain way
based on something that the people before us thought was right. Uh, okay,
what are likely immediate impacts if the DOE the Department
(37:47):
of Education is gone? How would that immediate. Would it
be harder to try to file a lawsuit or fight
because you wouldn't know who technically is the teeth of
the law anymore?
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Kelly, No, if today, well, if I had standing to sue,
if I was an athlete at a school that I
thought I was being discriminated against under Title nine, I
can file a lawsuit against them in the court that
has jurisdiction over them. I do not have to involve
the Department of Education in that, So that will not
change the access to courts. Obviously, a court process takes
(38:22):
a lot longer. Sometimes the Department of Education OCR process
can take a while, but going through court can obviously
take a lot longer. To see that change. There is
there is a case, the Schroeder versus University of Oregon
case which has been UH is already been filed, and
(38:43):
this makes claims not directly about NIL, but within those
treatment areas that we talked about that from a public
one of the treatment aarias is publicity, and that women
have been discriminated against on the beach volleyball and rowing
programs at Oregon because of the disparate treatment in terms
(39:04):
of NIL. So we may see something dispositive come out
on that or something instructive as that case plays out.
But it's been going on for a bit and is
still occurring, so again, it won't be a fast change, Okay, Alicia.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
This year we finally saw women's college basketball conferences get
financial units. This is payouts for their teams appearing and
advancing in the NCAA tournament. For years, men's have gotten it.
It's a percentage of the television revenue made by the tournament.
It's a lesser number for the women, but we're glad
they're finally getting something. This helps schools be motivated to
invest in their women's programs and see them succeed. What's
(39:43):
the next financial unit's fight? Is there something that the
men get? I mean that Pandora's box, But is there
something specific that the men that NCAA women athletes, teams
or tournaments have historically been denied that should be addressed
or people are in the process of starting to address.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
I don't know about being in the process to start
to address, but the units are certainly a great move.
For the reason you said, we're increasingly seeing athletics departments
strategize around men's basketball because they realize that even with
the expanded college football playoff, the pathways to revenue are
(40:19):
pretty set for football, and so schools, especially with these
increased payments being created through the House settlement, they need
to find more money, and so they're kind of strategizing
around men's basketball and aligning themselves in conferences that will
allow them to gain greater men's basketball units. So the
beauty now of women's basketball offering units. Hypothetically that same
(40:44):
mindset or strategizing should trickle down or over to women's basketball.
The thing that I think needs to happen in order
to put women's basketball on the same stature of men's
basketball is you have to pull women's basketball out of
the television contract negotiation with the rest of the sports.
(41:05):
And I understand the association's position of they were trying
to gain leverage, but I think that's the next big
story to watch in terms of creating greater revenue for
women's basketball in and of itself. That doesn't address the
other women's sports in college sports, But we'll start with
basketball and we'll move from there.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
Yeah, for those who don't remember when they had an
independent investigation of the inequities between women's and men's basketball.
A few years ago. They ultimately found that there was
a massive valuation for the women's basketball tournament. But because
the rights for the women's championships, every one of them
was wrapped into a TV rights package for every championship
outside of men's basketball and college football, that essentially meant
(41:48):
that it was kind of just bunched in. And because
TBS owned the rights of the men's basketball, the money
that came from those rights packages actually could always be
calculated and written down as revenue for men's basketball. So
it also allowed people to argue that the women's basketball
tournament was a money loser even as they sold out
sponsorships every single year and it grew and grew and grew,
and this independent investigation said, no, actually, it's worth like
(42:10):
eighty million a year and will be one hundred and
twenty million a year in coming years. But to your point,
they are still doing those television packages for more money now.
They materially renegotiated for the first time in a long time,
but the amount of money now is still combining everyone
together instead of allowing them to have their own separate negotiation.
Right would completely change the financial and economic opportunity there absolutely, Okay,
(42:34):
I think people have learned enough, even though there's so
much more to learn before I let you go. Are
there any other items on the horizon that we should
be watching for that might have an outsized impact on
women's college sports that we haven't talked about, Alicia, I.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Think watching how the revenue share contracts go is really
the growing story under the bedrock. I've had the opportunity
to work with a number of college athletes to negotiate
or hammer out these revenue share contracts, and it's a
wild experience, Sarah, because since they're limited to this cap
across all sports, the number changes as you're going through
(43:12):
the negotiation day to day. So you can start the
negotiation and the number is x, but if a player
signs and that player's lawyer or council negotiated up, your
number might go down. And so I think a story
to watch is just what kind of council and what
kind of advising do athletes gain access to? Because to
(43:33):
your point earlier, this is a whole new world where
now you know, coaches arguably were on and opposing side
to athletes and recruiting, but they were more on the
same side. These are opposing legal strategies when we're talking
about a revenue share contract, and so looking at how
women are educated on that matter, looking at the representation
(43:56):
that comes to help them, I think will be a
critical job uncture for the growth of women's sports.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Okay, quick follow up on that. So you're saying that
when an athlete is coming into a school, they are
in advance negotiating the amount of the twenty million per
year revenue that they will receive. So essentially, now, these
collegiate rosters are sort of like salary capped professional sports
where if you tell the football team you have x
amount of this twenty million, they have to figure out
(44:24):
how to slot the players that they're signing. Oh my gosh.
But then do they have to essentially negotiate with incoming
players on a one year basis as opposed to their
four years at the school because they can't then account
for future changes.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
Well, and the number is going to comes to art Yeah,
because it's twenty two percent of the average revenue of
the Power Conference schools, and so if they make more
money than not, it's it's wild.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Oh my god. Yeah, he's so exhausting for me. I'm
so glad I'm not a lawyer. My parents are both lawyers.
There was a lot of a push for that. Thank
god I did do it. Okay, Kelly, what about you?
Anything else we should be watching for?
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I think, you know, one of the best ways to
make change and ensure that we continue to invest in
women's sports is having women leaders in these significant athletic departments.
The power five, A five day, four, whatever number you
want to use at this point, but you know, I
think if there are women that are leading some of
(45:26):
these programs, then change can be enacted. And at the
commissioner level of this, you know, the major conferences in
the mid majors, I think watching how we see if
we see more women in those leadership roles, I think
will be very important for women's sports in college moving forward.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Well, you both gave me so many answers, and yet
I believe I have more questions than answers at this
point because it's just such a new space. But this
was extremely helpful. I know so much more than before.
So thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Yes, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Thanks so much to Kelly and Alicia for joining us.
Also want to give you a quick update regarding the
House versus NCAA case, So a federal judge issued a
fourteen day deadline on Wednesday for the defendants to come
to an agreement on how to implement roster sized limits
or they'll risk the rejection of the settlement. So we'll
be keeping our eyes on it the next couple weeks
and let you know how things unfold. We have to
(46:25):
take another break when we come back, the annual heartbreak.
WNBA fans and players are never quite prepared for welcome
back slices. It's time for another what the fact? Okay,
(46:48):
So the WNBA season is rapidly approaching and the WNBA
Draft took place last Monday. Page Beckers selected number one
overall by the Dallas Wings, and of course we are
super excited to watch her game grow this summer. But
what about the players who went later in the first round?
What about the second and third rounders, the players who
are walking into training camps with teams that already have
(47:09):
the pieces they need. Unfortunately, many of the college hoopers
who get drafted don't make a team roster, and it's
an annual heartbreaker for fans and players alike, no matter
how many times were warned it might happen. For example,
of the thirty six players drafted last year, only fifteen
played in at least one game. One year earlier, just
nineteen of sixteen made it to game day. And it's
(47:30):
been this way for a long time. Per analysis from
the Associated Press, between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty three,
just sixty five percent of draftees have played in a
single WNBA game. So what, Gibbs. Why is the WNBA
the hardest league in the US to make well? First
of all, WNBA rosters are small. Each team can include
up to twelve players, but the reality is that most
(47:51):
teams carry just eleven due to salary cap constraints. In comparison,
MNBA rosters can include fifteen players plus three players on
two way contracts. Those are players who are allowed to
go back and forth between the G League and the MNBA.
Now there is a bright spot here. The w is
actively expanding, which means that the number of roster spots
available to draftees is increasing. With the addition of the
(48:14):
Golden State Valkyries this upcoming season, there are one hundred
and fifty six total roster spots in the league, and
after the Toronto Tempo become draft eligible in twenty twenty six,
that total will bump up to one sixty eight. Hopefully
that'll mean more rookies end up in the mix for
the long haul, for both the good of the game
and the sanity of the fans who follow these supers
to the pros from college. This what the fact brought
(48:35):
to you by Elf Beauty. And here's another fact. Companies
with diverse leadership make more money. Elf Beauty credits part
of its success to its diverse board seventy eight percent
women and forty four percent diverse, and because of that diversity,
Elf has delivered twenty four consecutive quarters of sales growth,
the only cosmetics brand to grow market share every single quarter.
(48:58):
Elf is about including everyone, because when you do, everyone wins.
Learn more about what Elf Beauty is doing to help
diversify corporate boards, visit changethboardgame dot com. We always love
to hear from you slices, so hit us up on email.
Good game at wondermedianetwork dot com, and don't forget to subscribe,
rate and review. It's real easy. Watch Wnba Hooper Temmy
(49:19):
Fagbenley in the Children of Blood and Bone movie rating
five out of five. What Can't She Do? Review Now
producer Mesh says, I've been living in a hole because
I haven't read the New York Times bestselling novel Children
of Blood and Bone, part of author Tomy et Eemi's
Legacy of Arisha's series. It's one of their faves, packed
from top to tail with action and adventure set in
(49:40):
a fictional West African kingdom where magic and danger coexist,
and Mish obviously isn't the only superfan because the novel
is being adapted into a film directed by Gina Prince Bythewood,
the woman who directed Love and Basketball and The Woman King.
Film is set to release in early twenty twenty seven.
And WNBA Golden State Valkyries forward Temmy fag Benley is
a member of the cast. Hooper and actress a true
(50:03):
renaissance woman, and she'll be acting alongside some serious legends
Biola Davis, Cynthia Arrivo, Idris Elba, Regina King and Moore.
No word yet on what character she's going to play,
but we know she's going to knock it out of
the park and arguably the coolest part book author at
Aemi and Hooper fag Benley were classmates back at Harvard University.
Small world, and as Fag Benley put it, full circle,
(50:26):
We'll link to our Instagram post about the film and
our show notes, and we'll add the book to our
Good Game book club and my ever expanding stack of
to read when I get a damn vacation books. Now
it's your turn, y'all, rate and review. Thanks for listening.
See you next week when we celebrate our two hundredth episode,
Good Game, Kelly, Good Game, Alicia, you aforementioned stack of books,
(50:49):
stop taunting me. Good Game with Sarah Spain is an
iHeart women's sports production in partnership with Deep Blue Sports
and Entertainment. You can find us on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Production by
Wonder Media Network, our producers are Alex Azzie and Misha Jones.
Our executive producers are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan,
(51:12):
and Emily Rudder. Our editors are Emily Rutterer, Britney Martinez,
and Grace Lynch. Our associate producer is Lucy Jones and
I'm your host Sarah Spain
Host
Sarah Spain
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com