New NIL rules inch ball forward as all eyes remain focused on House antitrust case

The headlines from the NCAA Division I Council meetings may suggest that the governing body is moving the ball forward in a meaningful way on industry reform:

The Council approved proposals that allow schools to provide “assistance and services” to their athletes as they pursue NIL deals. That includes schools identifying NIL opportunities for athletes and being permitted to “facilitate deals” with third parties if athletes disclose deals valued at $600 or more to their schools.

But given the unprecedented level of industry disruption and widespread anticipation regarding a new financial model on the horizon, what emerged from this week’s meetings represents baby steps. It calls to mind the old John Wooden quote but with a twist: “Never mistake activity for (progress).”

NIL reform doesn’t include key parts of Project D-I

What was in fact notable was that the Council did not consider NCAA President Charlie Baker’s Project D-I reform proposal, which was unveiled in December amid much fanfare.

Elements of Project D-I have been assigned to various committees within the NCAA’s multilayered structure. They have not yet come back to the Council, a source familiar with the meetings told On3.

Baker’s proposal would allow schools to strike NIL deals with athletes and for the first time permit schools to pay athletes directly through a trust fund. That plan represents a significant step forward, wading ever so gingerly into a revenue-sharing model, even though many leaders believe the proposal did not go far enough.

And now even Baker’s proposal – slated to be fast-tracked just a few months ago – is essentially stuck in neutral.

House could cost NCAA, power leagues $4.2 billion

Industry sources say the NCAA’s leading stakeholders are pumping the brakes on expediting Baker’s proposal through the laborious NCAA legislation process because of ongoing legal issues, most notably the landmark House antitrust case.

The NCAA and power conferences could be on the hook for some $4.2 billion owed to thousands of athletes for retroactive NIL pay and shares of broadcast revenue. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are using Baker’s proposal to try to bolster their arguments in the case.

A settlement is possible, if not likely, before the trial gets underway next January. That settlement would almost certainly usher in the era of revenue sharing in big-time college sports.

At this point, it appears the outcome in the House case will be the catalyst that unlocks the door to revenue sharing, rather than any NCAA legislation that emerges beforehand from Indianapolis.