Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is Colorado's Morning News last week. In agreement in
the landmark two point eight billion dollars settlement in the
House Versus NCAA case, it allows universities to pay athletes
directly and will include back pay to student athletes who
played from twenty sixteen through this year.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
And there's been some pushback, specifically regarding women's sports. A
group of student athletes have appealed the settlement agreement, saying
it violates Title nine, a fifty three year old law
which bans sex based discrimination and education. Joining us now
in the KOA Common Spirit Health outline is Attorney John
Klun from the law firm Hutchinson, Black and Cook in Boulder.
(00:33):
First John. This effectively changes the foundation of college athletics
as we know it. Why is this settlement so important
and how critical is it for the NCAA to get
this right right now?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Well, I mean it just the whole procept of this
case and allowing athletes to get paid is really important.
This is probably a long time coming. Athletes to deserve
to make money off their name, image, likeness, and so
it really makes some great strides no matter how this
settlement resolves. In getting the settlement right now is really
important because it has a lot to do with how
schools are going to pay out athletes in the future.
(01:07):
Are they going to pay it proportionally between men and women?
Where are they going to file this call the same
pattern of ninety percent men and ten percent of the rest?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Can you explain what exactly your clients are looking for, John, So.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
What they want to see happen is title line be
applied when they're looking at back damages. So there's two
portions of the settlement. There's the back damages, which is
the two point eight billion dollars, and then there's the
future portion of how schools pay out. So we're just
objecting to where they calculated the back damages and we
believe at least for the money that came from the schools,
(01:42):
arguably that should have been paid out proportionately to male
and female assets.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
And those back damages are the two point eight billion
dollars correct?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Right? And our estimate is it's about a one point
one billion dollar error the way they calculated the damage payments.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So how much of that is going to female student
athletes and athletes who competed on women's teams compared to
the numbers that you're seeing for former football players or
basketball players, some of those revenue generating sports.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Yeah, so for most of our clients they're getting our
female clients, they're getting about four hundred and fifty dollars
total and back pay. And for particularly the football players,
you're looking at coup boys of hundreds of thousands of dollars,
if not seven figure settlements from.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Case John, I would think this this ruling would proportionally
affect or assist the revenue generating sports football, basketball, men's side,
women's basketball. Even where is the equitability when it comes
to the non revenue generating sports, Like if I said this,
I talked to my athletic director at Colorado State. They
have an elite men's and women's track program. So are
(02:50):
we looking for equitable or even or fair? And how
do you define that?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
There's two different concepts. One of them is like there
are other entities that can pay athletes. So you know,
we're talking about school money, but there are others, you know,
third parties, whether it's you know, video games or Nike
or whatever. Other third parties want to pay athletes that
can be in whatever proportions they want it to be.
Because that's not school money. But when it comes to
(03:18):
money that is coming through the school, they are subject
to Title nine. And what Title line has said since
the dawn of Title nine is that if you're providing
these benefits to male and female athletes, it has to
be proportionate to the numbers that you have in the
athletic department. So if you have fifty five percent men
in the athletic department, then fifty five percent of the
benefits go to the men and forty five percent go
(03:39):
to the women. The other types of payments, like I said,
corporate sponsorships, that sort of thing can be as lopsided
as they wanted to do.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
From what I understand, the settlement is set to go
into effect in July. That's kind of the start of
the fiscal year for most college athletic programs anyway. But
this has been years of negotiations. How can this appeal
impact that timeline for some of these athletes to get
their payouts.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
The payouts will be paused until this appeal goes through
and a court decides whether or not the actual payout
numbers are accurate or not. Nobody's going to get any
disbursements of the two point eight billion dollars until the
appeal is resolved. We already have some deadlines set by
the court, so I think they're going to try to
move this along quickly, but it's not not particularly a
(04:26):
fast process.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Are there other legal challenges that could come into play
that could potentially delay this going into effect. I know
that the payouts, the back pay, we talked about that,
but now there's a twenty point five million dollars annually
that schools can spend that they can pay directly to
student athletes. Is there another potential Title nine relevant case
(04:48):
with that for current student athletes?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Yeah. I think we're going to see separate lawsuits filed
against schools once they start paying out the MO in
the future payment portions, so that since since nobody has
seen them pay that money out yet, they can't be
it can't be an issue in this settlement that's already closed.
(05:12):
But for the future, you're going to see more lawsuits.
You know, see you, for example, has said that they're
going to they're going to pay out consistent with the
percentages that were in this House versus n C double
A case. You're going to see lawsuits along those lines
trying to apply title line in those fashions as well.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
From the law from Hutchinson, Black and Cook and Boulder,
it's John Cloton. Thanks John, thank you.
It is Colorado's Morning News last week. In agreement in
the landmark two point eight billion dollars settlement in the
House Versus NCAA case, it allows universities to pay athletes
directly and will include back pay to student athletes who
played from twenty sixteen through this year.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
And there's been some pushback, specifically regarding women's sports. A
group of student athletes have appealed the settlement agreement, saying
it violates Title nine, a fifty three year old law
which bans sex based discrimination and education. Joining us now
in the KOA Common Spirit Health outline is Attorney John
Klun from the law firm Hutchinson, Black and Cook in Boulder.
(00:33):
First John. This effectively changes the foundation of college athletics
as we know it. Why is this settlement so important
and how critical is it for the NCAA to get
this right right now?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Well, I mean it just the whole procept of this
case and allowing athletes to get paid is really important.
This is probably a long time coming. Athletes to deserve
to make money off their name, image, likeness, and so
it really makes some great strides no matter how this
settlement resolves. In getting the settlement right now is really
important because it has a lot to do with how
schools are going to pay out athletes in the future.
(01:07):
Are they going to pay it proportionally between men and women?
Where are they going to file this call the same
pattern of ninety percent men and ten percent of the rest?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Can you explain what exactly your clients are looking for, John, So.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
What they want to see happen is title line be
applied when they're looking at back damages. So there's two
portions of the settlement. There's the back damages, which is
the two point eight billion dollars, and then there's the
future portion of how schools pay out. So we're just
objecting to where they calculated the back damages and we
believe at least for the money that came from the schools,
(01:42):
arguably that should have been paid out proportionately to male
and female assets.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
And those back damages are the two point eight billion
dollars correct?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Right? And our estimate is it's about a one point
one billion dollar error the way they calculated the damage payments.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So how much of that is going to female student
athletes and athletes who competed on women's teams compared to
the numbers that you're seeing for former football players or
basketball players, some of those revenue generating sports.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Yeah, so for most of our clients they're getting our
female clients, they're getting about four hundred and fifty dollars
total and back pay. And for particularly the football players,
you're looking at coup boys of hundreds of thousands of dollars,
if not seven figure settlements from.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Case John, I would think this this ruling would proportionally
affect or assist the revenue generating sports football, basketball, men's side,
women's basketball. Even where is the equitability when it comes
to the non revenue generating sports, Like if I said this,
I talked to my athletic director at Colorado State. They
have an elite men's and women's track program. So are
(02:50):
we looking for equitable or even or fair? And how
do you define that?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
There's two different concepts. One of them is like there
are other entities that can pay athletes. So you know,
we're talking about school money, but there are others, you know,
third parties, whether it's you know, video games or Nike
or whatever. Other third parties want to pay athletes that
can be in whatever proportions they want it to be.
Because that's not school money. But when it comes to
(03:18):
money that is coming through the school, they are subject
to Title nine. And what Title line has said since
the dawn of Title nine is that if you're providing
these benefits to male and female athletes, it has to
be proportionate to the numbers that you have in the
athletic department. So if you have fifty five percent men
in the athletic department, then fifty five percent of the
benefits go to the men and forty five percent go
(03:39):
to the women. The other types of payments, like I said,
corporate sponsorships, that sort of thing can be as lopsided
as they wanted to do.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
From what I understand, the settlement is set to go
into effect in July. That's kind of the start of
the fiscal year for most college athletic programs anyway. But
this has been years of negotiations. How can this appeal
impact that timeline for some of these athletes to get
their payouts.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
The payouts will be paused until this appeal goes through
and a court decides whether or not the actual payout
numbers are accurate or not. Nobody's going to get any
disbursements of the two point eight billion dollars until the
appeal is resolved. We already have some deadlines set by
the court, so I think they're going to try to
move this along quickly, but it's not not particularly a
(04:26):
fast process.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Are there other legal challenges that could come into play
that could potentially delay this going into effect. I know
that the payouts, the back pay, we talked about that,
but now there's a twenty point five million dollars annually
that schools can spend that they can pay directly to
student athletes. Is there another potential Title nine relevant case
(04:48):
with that for current student athletes?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Yeah. I think we're going to see separate lawsuits filed
against schools once they start paying out the MO in
the future payment portions, so that since since nobody has
seen them pay that money out yet, they can't be
it can't be an issue in this settlement that's already closed.
(05:12):
But for the future, you're going to see more lawsuits.
You know, see you, for example, has said that they're
going to they're going to pay out consistent with the
percentages that were in this House versus n C double
A case. You're going to see lawsuits along those lines
trying to apply title line in those fashions as well.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
From the law from Hutchinson, Black and Cook and Boulder,
it's John Cloton. Thanks John, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.