My turn | The latest NIL challenge has similar undertones to the Shannon

To send a letter to the editor, click here.

To pitch a “My Turn” guest column, email [email protected].

Would you like to buy today’s print edition? Here’s a map of single-copy locations.

Earlier this year, Terrence Shannon Jr. successfully challenged his suspension at the University of Illinois. The gist of his lawsuit was that the university had deprived Shannon of his property rights by using a constitutionally flawed suspension process.

In a landmark ruling, a federal court in Chicago ruled that an NCAA athlete has a constitutionally protected interest in a NIL deal, stating that a suspension could have “life-altering consequences on the student-athlete’s ability to negotiate NIL deals and to pursue a professional career. in their sport.”

The court also ruled that Shannon was denied the same “objective review of evidence” as other students accused of a crime.

A federal court in Rapid City, SD, is ruling on a different type of NIL takeaway situation that has similar undertones of unfair treatment.

The plaintiff is the attorney general of South Dakota and is suing on behalf of NCAA schools in his state – South Dakota State and the University of South Dakota.

He claims that the proposed antitrust settlement between the House and the NCAA will unlawfully take money away from these schools to pay for NIL antitrust violations committed almost entirely by power conferences.

At his point, the NCAA forces smaller schools to pay 60 percent of the $1.65 billion (about $990 million) by reducing annual distributions to them, while the Power Five conference schools must pay the remaining 40 percent in reduced payouts .

Although the outcome is not yet known, a recent lawsuit shows how poorly smaller schools are treated by power conference schools and the NCAA.

This filing includes an internal letter from the leaders of Oakland University, Yale, and Bucknell, all schools with smaller athletics programs that can neither afford to pay for nor have caused (with minor exceptions) these antitrust damages.

During a meeting on May 8, the small schools were first informed about a possible settlement. “There was very little opportunity for board members to provide constructive feedback or engage in helpful dialogue,” said the three presidents, writing on behalf of the smaller institutions.

The recent filing in the South Dakota case also shows that the presidents of Yale, Bucknell, and Oakland complained of a “rushed… process, which did not allow for a thorough examination” of the impact of these NIL damages on smaller schools.

These concerns are similar to Shannon’s legal argument that the three-member panel created specifically for athletes did not provide these individuals with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The presidents also argued that by pushing through this settlement, the NCAA had violated the NCAA’s bylaws.

These rules dictate how to change the NCAA’s complex revenue distribution among its member institutions.

The presidents believed that the bylaws required a full vote at an annual NCAA meeting. In addition, any change to the school revenue formula required the approval of a two-thirds majority.

The lawsuit in South Dakota may have consequences. A federal court could issue an order banning the NCAA from reducing revenue to those state universities. Other states have expressed interest in pursuing these types of legal challenges.

If South Dakota succeeds and sets off a rush of similar lawsuits against small schools, it could put the NCAA in the crosshairs of conflicting court orders — a settlement decree in the House case that codifies an agreement to pay nearly $1 billion to these smaller schools, and opposing court orders prohibiting these revenue reductions.

It’s premature to say whether — or how — power conferences and their schools might absorb any shift in damage.

But this type of legal action likely falls outside the scope of federal Judge Claudia Wilken’s jurisdiction. In other words, this is an additional attack on the settlement in the House of Representatives.

The stakes are high for schools, large and small.

The small schools believe this settlement will not only harm their athletic programs, but also undermine their core academic activities. Tiny Houston Christian University made this argument to Wilken in May, but she dismissed the school’s concerns and said HCU should discuss it with the NCAA.

Now the South Dakota case has led to a public record of internal NCAA meetings showing how manipulatively the NCAA and power conferences treat their smaller members.

Also included in the same file was a lengthy letter from all 22 small conferences reflecting their sense of unfair treatment. “We have not been involved in settlement negotiations or damages modeling,” their letter to the NCAA said, “and became aware of the status of the settlement two weeks ago.”

They called this “misaligned allocation” unjust and quoted the athletes’ attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, who had previously said: “We have to view schools with autonomy (power conferences) as different… because these schools have these giant, independent commercial corporations . ”

And the small conferences, while envious, noted that Football Bowl Subdivision schools will be able to offset this damage with access to a new College Football Playoff funding model. Perhaps the 22 smaller conferences were holding out a carrot for negotiations, but suggesting that the “NCAA would commit to meaningful championship access for all 32 conferences” – in other words, allowing the small schools to play for tournament money in a football equivalent of March Madness.

Through the haze of lawsuits, so much is clear. The athletes have been treated unfairly by depriving them of NIL revenue from broadcasting. Hundreds of small schools have complained to their own association about unfair treatment. The power conferences behind these legal and internal complaints collect billions of dollars in TV revenue and stand to make even more money through the expanded football playoffs.

And as these lawsuits multiply, the prospect of college athletics imploding grows with each passing day.