NJDuck Moderator No. 1 Share Posted June 11 The case marks the first formal appeal filed since the historic settlement was finalized on Friday House v. NCAA settlement payments on hold amid legal challenge from female athletes on Title IX grounds - CBSSports.com WWW.CBSSPORTS.COM The case marks the first formal appeal filed since the historic settlement was finalized on Friday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 2 Share Posted June 11 Hoo-boy...if they want half of everything? 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 3 Share Posted June 11 According to other sources, this appeal, which was expected, will not hold up direct payments. Brace yourself for more litigation. The House settlement's direct payments to athletes are referred to as 'revenue sharing.' How do you equally share ZERO revenue? "Yes, football brings in 80% of the revenue, but we want the same money! It's only FAIR!" Is it time for Atlas to Shrug? Dear World, unless Congress gets these lawyers off our backs, 2025-26 will be the last season of college football and all other varsity sports. Have a Nice Day. /S/ FBS Football and D1 sports. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanLduck No. 4 Share Posted June 11 The quickest way to end women's sports, demand equal pay. I've never been a fan of all women's sports, I know that's not politically correct. But the premise is equal pay for equal work. The game may be the same, but the "work" (play) is not even close to the same. Just have the WNBA champ play the NBA worst team, and see the difference. Oy vey! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 5 Share Posted June 12 On 6/11/2025 at 4:51 PM, DanLduck said: Just have the WNBA champ play the NBA worst team, and see the difference. I think it's clear that last season's underperforming men's basketball team would have an easy time beating the 2019-20 women's basketball team. That does not change my opinion that the 2019-20 women's basketball team is the best team in Oregon sports history. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Duck No. 6 Share Posted June 12 I fail to understand why sharing football revenue with say men’s tennis or golf would be legally different from sharing football revenue with women’s softball. If you know, please advise. If your answer is: “Because softball is played by women,” you lose in every Oregon court where I have appeared representing clients, which is half the Circuit Courts, the Court of Appeals over 200 times and the Supreme Court about 15. There may be an argument over standing, but that would only be a temporary delay if successful. Ultimately women’s teams will share. They deserve it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar No. 7 Share Posted June 12 On 6/11/2025 at 9:59 PM, Grandpa Duck said: I fail to understand why sharing football revenue with say men’s tennis or golf would be legally different from sharing football revenue with women’s softball. If you know, please advise. If your answer is: “Because softball is played by women,” you lose in every Oregon court where I have appeared representing clients, which is half the Circuit Courts, the Court of Appeals over 200 times and the Supreme Court about 15. There may be an argument over standing, but that would only be a temporary delay if successful. Ultimately women’s teams will share. They deserve it. I agree. Once you share outside of the team that generated the money it shouldn't matter whether they are male or female, both should benefit equally. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 8 Share Posted June 12 Some in Congress are trying to help college sports. Congress introduces new bill to provide uniform national guidelines for college sports TROJANSWIRE.USATODAY.COM A proposed bill would create uniform national rules for college athletics that all schools and conferences would be required to follow I don't see congressional relief coming before a collective bargaining agreement is reached between Athletes and Management. School A is directly paying Athlete B. But it's 'Revenue Sharing' and not a salary, but Athlete B is not an employee, right? This is SSDD NCAA semantics designed to thwart what the marketplace has delivered. The IRS does not care whether income arises from NIL deals; it's all income and subject to taxation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 9 Share Posted June 12 On 6/12/2025 at 12:59 AM, Grandpa Duck said: I fail to understand why sharing football revenue with say men’s tennis or golf would be legally different from sharing football revenue with women’s softball. If you know, please advise. If your answer is: “Because softball is played by women,” you lose in every Oregon court where I have appeared representing clients, which is half the Circuit Courts, the Court of Appeals over 200 times and the Supreme Court about 15. There may be an argument over standing, but that would only be a temporary delay if successful. Ultimately women’s teams will share. They deserve it. Point well made. Do you feel the same regarding the PGA male golfers earning far more in prize money than the LPGA female golfers? Women pro golfers play 3 rounds to determine a winner instead of the PGA's four rounds, and draw on average 930,000 viewers compared to the PGA's 2.2 million viewers. Should the LPGA money be the same? The marketplace says: "No." Close to 80% more viewers watch Men's Major events compared to the women's Majors. Why would sponsors put up the money to reward women golfers the same as male golfers? 'But Title IX does not apply to pro sports; it does apply to college sports.' I agree. Because a school accepts federal funding, it's only fair and equitable that athletes who earn no money for the school be paid the same as athletes who produce the revenue that is being shared? This is certainly not the case in the capitalistic business world and and college sports are big business. In a business sense, Title IX is a relic of an amateur athletic system that no longer exists. Title IX has been a boon to women's sports, and it's terrific to see women receiving college scholarships and the appropriate stipends. However, it was not fair and equitable from the inception of Title IX to include football scholarships in the fairness calculus when there is no comparable women's sport. It was not fair to men that men's teams were cut to make women's sports equal to men's sports. $20.5 million is the year one House settlement direct payment cap. Allocate 50% to women's sports, and the result will be a significant reduction in men's and women's sports teams. No big-time athletic program has budgeted revenue sharing in the same dollar amounts to non-revenue sports as distributed to revenue-making sports. Baseball players will not receive the same revenue slice as football and male basketball players. If you distribute the revenue equally, there will be a drop in Men's football and basketball talent, lesser merchandise sales, and a reduction in attendance, which will equate to a significant drop in the revenue available to be shared. If we're talking FAIRNESS, revenue should be distributed as earned. This is how the marketplace defines fairness. It will be interesting to see if this Title IX complaint is sustained. If the complaint is found to be meritorious, such a finding will hurry along the coming NFL and NBA Lite. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 10 Share Posted June 12 AP coverage of the Title IX-based appeal to the settlement. Female athletes appeal landmark NCAA settlement, saying it violates federal antidiscrimination law APNEWS.COM Eight female athletes have filed an appeal of a landmark NCAA antitrust settlement. They argue that women would not receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes who were barred... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 11 Share Posted June 12 On 6/12/2025 at 8:26 AM, Jon Joseph said: If we're talking FAIRNESS, revenue should be distributed as earned. This is how the marketplace defines fairness. Agreed. Uconn Women's basketball has been a dynasty for decades, but Uconn football brings in more money. Fair and equal are not the same. Football is the Machine. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 12 Share Posted June 12 QUACK! This positive take on the House settlement being favorable for Oregon applies, per John Wilner of The Wilner Hotline ($ wall), to the B1G in general. NIL is not going away. Wilner cites the B1G number of living alumni dwarfing the ACC, B12, and SEC alums, and the corresponding close to a certainty that the B1G will bring in more media revenue, as is the case today, when media deals are renewed in the early 2030s. That B1G media revenue comes from three traditional media companies and not ESPN, with more cords being cut than network TV, is also a plus. The House settlement terms exempt NIL deals with public companies from NIL Go oversight. Many more public companies are located in the B1G footprint headquarters than is the case with the SEC, ACC, and B12. B1G graduates lead the Power 4 in CEOs and Board Members of Fortune 500 and other public companies. College athletics today are big business, and the B1G conference has the biggest business impact. What the NCAA house settlement means for Oregon Football DUCKSWIRE.USATODAY.COM The NCAA house settlement will bring widespread change to college football, but the Oregon Ducks stand to benefit. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 13 Share Posted June 12 A look at how revenue-sharing money is likely to be split. College sports athletic departments face tough revenue sharing decisions WWW.USATODAY.COM How will schools share revenue with teams and athletes? That’s left to schools to decide. Welcome to "Capology." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter No. 14 Share Posted June 12 When title IX was decided, it was all about scholarships. Nobody got paid anything except tuition, room and board and books. It made sense that there should be equal numbers of them in institutions where the populations were kind of Co-ed in somewhat equal proportions. In response, I'm a little surprised schools didn't go back to the old Ivy League pattern or even their new one. Programs were dropped and I can't recall lawsuits fighting back against that. The only things necessary were balance and the conference requirement for a minimum number of sports. Where those requirements will end up now will be an interesting (or not) story and it could be a bedtime story for the NCAA. Things have changed just a little bit since then so it's probably not out of line to revisit the whole issue, and I'm sure it will be ad nauseum. Fairness the previous driving force is going to found in a morgue, far from the bus that hit it. Once again programs may die but this time the result will be a lot of billable hours. Fans are not going to have any input nor are we going to enjoy the result. Can it become "I'm going to take my ball and play somewhere else!"? The tumult and the directions it could go are worthy of a series of Vegas lines. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 15 Share Posted June 13 Again, the Title IX appeal has not put payments on hold. The Title IX plaintiffs will not be 'irreparably' damaged if revenue sharing payments begin. If the appeal is successful, monetary damages will adequately compensate the plaintiffs (and their lawyers ). 'Clarity' regarding this settlement is akin to 'commitment' in the world of football recruiting. The road ahead after the NCAA settlement comes with risk, reward and warnings APNEWS.COM The annual National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention this week included a very hot topic: The $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 16 Share Posted June 13 Good Luck, Yuck Yuck What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders? SPORTS.YAHOO.COM All NIL deals must now pass through a process run by Deloitte. It threatens to significantly scale back the millions of dollars being handed to athletes from booster-backed collectives. Lawyers are lining up to blow past NIL Go on their way to the courthouse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idontrollonshobbas No. 17 Share Posted yesterday at 01:12 PM Federal funding, hell even state funding, has become a smaller piece of the Total Revenue for many Power 4 schools since 1965 or whenever Title IX was enacted. I wonder if some schools would opt to forgo federal funding to avoid the sports revenue sharing? Especially if research grants, as opposed to financial aid, are considered outside the definition of Title IX federal funding. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 18 Share Posted yesterday at 02:48 PM On 6/12/2025 at 12:59 AM, Grandpa Duck said: I fail to understand why sharing football revenue with say men’s tennis or golf would be legally different from sharing football revenue with women’s softball. If you know, please advise. If your answer is: “Because softball is played by women,” you lose in every Oregon court where I have appeared representing clients, which is half the Circuit Courts, the Court of Appeals over 200 times and the Supreme Court about 15. There may be an argument over standing, but that would only be a temporary delay if successful. Ultimately women’s teams will share. They deserve it. Because they are women? My comment did not in any manner infer that women who produce the same revenues as men should receive less revenue. Please point out my specific statement(s) that support your belief that my argument discriminates against women? There is 20.5 million dollars to be revenue-shared. Is it not basic economics that the people providing the vast majority of the revenue, football and men's basketball, should receive a greater share of the revenue? If they do not continue to produce the same revenue, men's and women's tennis and many other sports will disappear, and the Athletic department will be in the red and not the black Your idea of 'fairness' and mine differ. I don't believe those who produce less money deserve a share equal to those who produce more. I don't believe a woman tennis player struggling on the circuit deserves the same money as Coco Gauff. I know for a fact the struggling player will not appear on a Wheaties box as does Coco. I also do not think women on the pro circuit deserve the same prize money as the men's tour, which brings in far more dollars. This is not an argument founded in 'equality,' but rather, founded on economics. A person's sex should not ipso facto equate to receiving the same money as another person who produces more money. I understand and support LSU women's gymnast Livvy Dunne making millions of dollars more in NIL income than Michigan men's champion gymnast Fred Richard. I see no argument that would justify Fred making the same money as Livvy simply because he's a man. Regardless of sex, people who produce less revenue do not deserve the same return as those who produce more revenue. Thank you for the reply. 1 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter No. 19 Share Posted yesterday at 05:32 PM I can't see much more happening than a LOT of litigation and possibly the end of the NCAA with a football group being created with no other sports included. It may become a 4 to 6 or 8 regional split up of teams. Oregon would be back on the West Coast or Northwest region and probably fine with a split of the annual revenue this set-up would gather in. The NCAA could probably not survive without football money so it will be interesting to see what happens to all the other sports, basketball probably leading the financial contribution to whatever develops. Would the universities be forced somehow to put money from football back into the other sports? Could they if there was no functional NCC or they just plain were no longer part of it? Would so many scholarships for many just disappear? Would other 'organizations' develop for baseball, basketball (men and women or just men?)? It's really a lot to take in but I think this decision may kill college sports rather than 'help' them. Even if none of this happens, Title IX is going to be a big firecracker in the toilet and probably reformatted in the end. About the only thing I am sure of is that football will survive and thrive. It's too big to kill. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter No. 20 Share Posted 23 hours ago of course the organization I referred to was tha NCAA, not the NCC if that even exists 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
