Athlete advocacy groups push for players to think beyond House settlement, revenue sharing

College sports are set to change radically as the proposed long-form settlement in the House v. NCAA lawsuit has been filed and is being reviewed by Judge Claudia Wilken. 

But no matter the outcome of the settlement – if ultimately approved, it would usher in an age of revenue sharing for college sports – various athlete advocacy organizations are poised to keep pushing on behalf of college athletes and football players. 

Despite the seeming pending victory for revenue sharing becoming the norm for high-level college athletic departments, the feeling is there’s still plenty of work to be done in the space on behalf of college athletes.

“They’ve been conditioned in this new NIL Era to think about what they can get financially while they can get it,” Athletes.Org founder Jim Cavale told On3. “And that has been a distraction from them thinking about, ‘Well, when I’m 23 and beyond, there’s a lot of things I’m gonna need to get a job, to have healthcare from beating up my body like this, to be mentally stable, et cetera.”

However, athletic directors and administrators have struck a slightly different tune. Setting aside questions about employment, they’re not seemingly opposed to working more directly with athletes, treating them closer to equal partners. But, in that guise, they were quick to point to the services and amenities they do provide current athletes absent any formal negotiations to get there.

So, where might things go next?

Revenue sharing tip of iceberg for advocacy groups

While getting athletes a piece of the financial pie was evidently the first target for advocates, it’s by no means an endpoint.

“The CBA is 700 pages and only a few pages are about how the revenue sharing works, right?” Cavale said of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement.

U.S. labor law allows for not only the negotiating of salary and other compensation but for workers to push for better working conditions and similarly situated issues. How that manifests for college athletes, specifically, is hard to predict. But Cavale is quite confident there’s plenty more on the table for athletes across all sports.

For example in the NFL, players have a say in how many games are played each season, how the waiver and free agency processes play out, the medical care they’re eligible to receive and seek out, and plenty more. Despite the move to sharing revenue with college athletes – primarily football players at Power Four institutions – the model of college athletic departments mostly dictating terms to athletes across all sports is seemingly not changing with the possible adoption of the House settlement.

So even while the courts are poised to hand down what would be a major victory with respect to college athletes – especially football players at major programs – getting paid, it still leaves plenty on the table for advocacy groups to push for.

“When I talk with current players, and I talk with former players when it comes to football, especially guys who are getting paid now, it’s like the money doesn’t – it’s not the moving issue to get guys involved in organizing,” said Jason Stahl, executive director and founder of the College Football Players Association. “The moving issue in football is player health, like 100%.”

Getting athletes engaged is critical step

He continued, giving plaudits to the National Football League Players Association for pushing that issue forward and indicating where the next push could be.

“I mean, how is it that college football is miles away from where the NFL is when it comes to issues of player health? Why is that?” Stahl said. “It’s because the NFLPA has done a good job, particularly, I would say, over the last 10 years, of putting player health more front and center.” 

From Stahl’s perspective, the path forward centers around the ability of athletes to sit down with the people running college athletics and negotiate a deal governing the endeavor in good faith. Employment and collective bargaining is surely the clearest path for such an endpoint, but Stahl will happily take another route to athletes having more say in their working conditions.

Cavale, too, expects the arrival of revenue sharing will help cultivate a generation of college athletes that are slightly more engaged in these issues – ideally to the point they can exercise their collective power.

“And once the athletes negotiate what they’re gonna make from the schools with them, I think that will be the mechanism for which an organization like us can not only get them the best financial deal but make sure that all of these other categories you’re mentioning are also negotiated properly as benefits offered by the school to the athlete,” Cavale said. “Because it’s very important.” 

In a way, the House settlement itself is a microcosm of what Cavale, Stahl and their counterparts are trying to combat: Even in the process of finally allowing college athletes to directly profit from the product they produce, the NCAA and member schools did so without ever directly considering the demands and desires of its ostensible workforce.

Can athletes think about long-term needs?

Getting athletes to flip the switch from short-term mindsets to considering not only their long-term needs, but the power they hold in shaping how current and future college athletes might be treated, is one of the key challenges. 

Cavale and Athletes.Org have leaned on CEO Brandon Copeland, a former college and NFL football player, to set the stage. Copeland was a former NFLPA player rep and is helping implement a similar model as Athletes.Org tries to work with various college teams across multiple sports. That model tasks player representatives to keep apprised of issues for their team and represent them at the bargaining table.

Stahl and the CFBPA are pushing for a very similar model, at least in regard to college football. Both the football-focused CFBPA and broader-based Athletes.Org are banking on their groups not just being composed of current athletes but also getting meaningful contributions from former players. 

And Stahl, specifically, doesn’t want his efforts to only include Power Four players.

“You don’t just matter if you play for Ohio State, you don’t just matter if you play for Alabama,” Stahl said. “And so what we’re saying is there needs to be another pathway people need to understand, to get out of their individualized box that you can only act as an individual. 

“What we’re trying to say is players need to act collectively, and that could be through a formal collective bargaining process. But there are other ways in which individuals can come together and act collectively to better the lives of the group.”

Big Ten athletic directors are not opposed to offering more

While the courts boxed in athletic departments as far as revenue sharing was concerned – the House case was negotiated to a settlement in part to prevent a loss at trial for the NCAA and member schools – athletic directors in attendance at Big Ten Media Days reminded of all that athletic departments are currently doing for athletes.  

Two athletic directors who spoke with On3 sought to remind how athletic departments and universities already provide many services like healthcare, nutritionists and trainers and academic support.

“We’re at a window in time right now where really every dollar is being invested in the student, whether or not through compensation or through some of the services we’re providing,” Nebraska athletic director Troy Dannen said to On3. 

Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller struck a similar tone but shared that working more closely with athletes on what the schools are providing them, both during and after their time competing, seems like a natural outcome to follow revenue sharing.

“I do think it needs to transition more into what happens after the players leave because this is really only three, four, five years of their lives,” Haller said. “And they’re gonna make some pretty good money, what happens after this? And the transition into emotional care for them, mental health, caring for their bodies, and then also the opportunity to continue their education and finish their degrees.”

Employment off table for school leaders

Dannen also alluded to changes in how the athletic department dedicates funds in order to keep up with revenue sharing and other areas athletes might be able to demand more. 

“We have not, I think we may get there with House – we haven’t really seen money taken from Peter to pay Paul,” Dannen said. “I think in the post-House world, we may see departments really start to refocus their prioritization of resources because none of us have a $21 million surplus.”

But for all the ground they might be willing to give now, there is one key issue that the athletic directors were aligned on: They don’t want to make athletes university employees.

“I hope, and I want to stay less than employees,” Haller said. “I don’t think that that’s the direction college athletics should go in any of the sports. So, I’m gonna fight hard and be one of the people that are gonna be an advocate for leaving it less than an employee.”