Ten athletic directors to enforce new rules under college sports lawsuit

Ten athletic directors are taking on the biggest lift in college sports, figuring out how to enforce new rules that will come into play when terms of the landmark $2.8 billion antitrust settlement reconfiguring their industry go into effect this summer.

The Indianapolis-based NCAA and five conferences named as defendants in the House settlement on Wednesday revealed a list of the athletic directors on the Settlement Implementation Committee, along with the tasks they’re being asked to tackle for the rollout of a new system that will go into effect July 1, assuming a federal judge approves the settlement after a hearing on April 7.

The 10 athletic directors on the committee: Trev Alberts, Texas A&M University; Scott Barnes, Oregon State University; Mitch Barnhart, University of Kentucky; J Batt, Georgia Tech; Ross Bjork, Ohio State; Pat Chun, Washington; John Cunningham, Cincinnati; Graham Neff, Clemson; Anne McCoy, Washington State; and Desiree Reed-Francois, Arizona.

Their main tasks include creating a digital platform for universities to report payments to athletes to make sure they comply with a cap of up to $20.5 million per school; creating a system that ensures third-party name, image and likeness deals are legitimate—i.e., not pay-for-play, and worth “fair market value”; and creating a system to enforce the rules and deliver sanctions for schools and individuals that violate them.

The so-called “cap management” platform will be run by LBi software, which has built similar systems for Major League Baseball and the NBA.

The audit and financial consulting firm Deloitte will run a system that evaluates NIL deals worth more than $600. Those deals, by terms of the settlement, are subject to scrutiny by this newly created enforcement body. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued there is ample data to place a fair market value on what athletes provide to ensure they are actually being paid for services and not simply to enroll in a school.

Among the group’s toughest chores will be finding appropriate sanctions for those who violate the rules.

One of the NCAA’s biggest weaknesses over the decades was how long it took to investigate and eventually penalize programs and coaches who ran afoul of recruiting and academic rules. This group isn’t expected to have the power to place programs on probation but will likely be able to fine programs and coaches—and also reduce the amount they’re able to offer in revenue-sharing.

With the April 7 hearing for approval of the settlement nearing, dissenting voices about the sprawling settlement are growing louder.

One concern is that restricting the amount players can earn via some measure of fair market value could lead to new lawsuits arguing their earning ability is still being restricted. The NCAA and the conferences are in favor of federal legislation that would subject colleges to the same set of rules and also potentially provide the NCAA with an antitrust exemption to avoid some of those issues.

“I fear that rules meant to create stability for college athletics are being challenged every day in the courts, and this is an area in which we need your help,” University of Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh told a House subcommittee Tuesday in a hearing about NIL.