Ross Dellenger - Senior College Football Reporter
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A pillared goliath along Constitution Avenue, the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium stands as one of the capital city’s most iconic buildings, roughly a half-mile from the Washington Monument and with a bird’s-eye view of the U.S. Capitol.
The 90-year-old auditorium has hosted some of the nation’s most defining and historic events. This is where dignitaries established NATO in 1949, where President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, and where the 9/11 Commission released its findings.
On Wednesday evening, the Mellon Auditorium hosted something else: a gathering of university presidents, college athletic directors, coaches, and congressional staff members as part of the latest lobbying effort from the power conferences for a federal college sports bill.
Within this gaudy setting, around the fully stocked bar and among the distributed hors d'oeuvres, some of the most powerful people in college sports shared with one another an exasperated message.
What the hell do we do now?
In a pivotal year for college athletics, perhaps this is its seminal moment.
Over the next few weeks, the industry’s future rests on decisions from a 75-year-old retiring federal judge to approve the landmark House settlement; a divided congressional membership to produce federal legislation; and its own schools to, for lack of a better phrase, behave themselves during the opening of the upcoming football transfer portal.
What could go wrong?
“It will be a real s***storm,” quipped one power league athletic director.
The judge’s delay in approving the settlement has paved the way for a potential spending spree in football once the 10-day portal opens on Wednesday. Without an approval, another uncapped portal cycle may produce more than $50 million in compensation to players, estimates one athletic director. Already, there are signs of the impending cash grab as quarterback Nico Iamaleava has decided to enter the portal after a contract dispute with Tennessee.
It may also impact a bipartisan agreement from five U.S. senators. College stakeholders learned of the intense negotiations during last week’s summit to D.C.—a significant development but one with remaining impediments to a deal.
The settlement looms over several things tied to athlete compensation at a crucial juncture.
On Monday, the defendants in the House settlement (NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (attorneys for athletes suing over compensation) plan to file briefs, plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler told Yahoo Sports this weekend.
The briefs will address issues raised by California judge Claudia Wilken, the woman presiding over the case who is charged with approving or disapproving of the settlement.
College executives are not expected to make changes to a portion of the settlement agreement—roster limits—that Wilken suggested be changed, those with knowledge told Yahoo Sports. During a hearing in California on Monday, Wilken recommended college leaders phase in roster limits or grandfather in those already on an existing roster. However, such actions are not expected from the defendants. They will instead offer a deeper explanation for the new roster limitations—a concept that has been perhaps the most widely criticized piece of the agreement.
While the NCAA and power conferences agreed to expand scholarships as part of the settlement—schools are now permitted, not required, to scholarship every player on a roster—they also imposed sport roster limits that did not previously exist. The roster limits are expected to lead to the elimination of thousands of Division I roster spots, most notably impacting walk-ons and partial scholarship earners in swimming, football, track, and cross country.
Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear on Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”
The NCAA and power leagues argue that the new roster limits come with an expansion of scholarships that will see schools spend millions on additional aid. However, Wilken told NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru during the hearing, “That’s small comfort” to the athletes who are cut or do not receive scholarship money.
For months now, schools and athletes have operated with the understanding that roster limits would not feature a phase-in approach, a move that if reversed would trigger a cascade of issues for those who have already been cut or left a school.
Kilaru suggested in the hearing that the roster limits would remain part of the settlement.
“This is the deal,” he told the judge. “This was really hard fought to get agreement on. This was carefully thought out and we think it is fair and reasonable.”
According to those with knowledge of the settlement negotiations, power conference leaders implemented the new roster structure as a way to preemptively avoid any legal challenges over the previous scholarship restrictions as well as save money for schools that will now be sharing a previously unbudgeted $20 million-plus annually with athletes.
Wilken’s other settlement-related recommendations are expected to be made, including her concern over future athletes’ inclusion in the 10-year settlement’s injunctive class. Athletes, even those not currently in college, are automatically part of the class, which releases any future legal claims that they might have. A brief is expected to slightly amend language so that future athletes remain in the class but their claims are not released until they have the opportunity to object in California’s Northern District, where the case resides.
Kessler declined to address specifics of the case when asked if not changing roster limits would have an adverse impact on the judge’s decisions. He still expressed optimism in the settlement eventually being approved, gesturing to the pure numbers: nearly 400,000 class members, more than 88,000 backpay claims made, and just 600 combined opt-outs and objections.
During Monday’s hearing, Wilken herself described it as a “good settlement.”
After Monday’s filing, objectors will have one day to file a one-page response. Within “a matter of weeks,” Kessler expects a decision from the judge will be made.
But as the delay persists, so too does uncertainty within the college athletics space and on Capitol Hill.
During their two-day lobbying effort on the Hill this week, college administrators met with their corresponding state lawmakers. But the power conference commissioners met with those closest to the issue.
Five U.S senators have met several times over the last six weeks in serious negotiations over drafting a federal bill to regulate college sports compensation, including Republicans Ted Cruz (Texas) and Jerry Moran (Kansas), and Democrats Cory Booker (New Jersey), Chris Coons (Delaware), and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut). Essential to any advancement of a bill is Cruz, the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Booker, a former Stanford football player and a leading voice among Democrats in the Senate.
Discussions between Cruz and Booker reignited in March after stalling last spring. However, hurdles remain unresolved in a bipartisan agreement, according to legislative staff members and college administrators briefed on the discussions.
A framework of a bill is expected to include three main concepts:
- A limited antitrust protection that codifies the House settlement to allow the NCAA and power conferences to enforce eligibility and transfer rules as well as rules around the new revenue-sharing structure.
- A clause deeming athletes as students and not employees, with a possible sunset on that provision after a set number of years.
- Pre-emption of existing NIL state laws, many of which contradict the settlement and/or NCAA rules.
“They’re as close as they’ve been,” said one person with knowledge of the discussions, “but they’ve been close before.”
They are close enough that an objector appearing at the House settlement hearing last Monday raised the issue and so did Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys who told the judge that Cruz was working on a bill to give the NCAA “complete immunity.”
The NCAA and power conferences’ aggressive lobbying effort is a clear sign that they believe that, in order to enforce rules without legal challenges, federal legislation is necessary even if the settlement is approved. On Monday, Wilken gave them even more reason to seek congressional help.
In her opening, the judge suggested that she will not necessarily grant the request to “bless” the current NCAA regulations. “They can ask but that wouldn’t be something the court would be inclined to do one way or the other,” she said.
During a question-and-answer segment at Wednesday night’s reception in the Mellon Auditorium, commissioners spoke against athlete employment and in support of federal legislation. Greg Sankey, commissioner of the SEC, told the crowd that leaders must “keep pushing” for a federal bill.
“The settlement needs to be codified,” Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark said. “I’m optimistic we can get there. Everyone knows there’s a sense of urgency.”
In the meantime, the White House has not publicly taken a stance on the issue. However, President Donald Trump is aware of the situation and has spoken to multiple college sports stakeholders about college sports legislation, according to multiple college and congressional officials.
“He wants to help,” says one who spoke directly to Trump. “He wants to help save college sports.”
Over the last few weeks, college leaders have seriously explored shifting the opening of the football transfer portal to a date after the settlement’s approval—a move to prevent schools from circumventing the cap by frontloading payments.
On the advice of attorneys and others, leadership agreed on no changes, according to those familiar with the conversations.
The football portal stands to see significant movement as the market remains uncapped without settlement approval. Player agents are gearing up for a busy two weeks, said Jason Bloom, general manager of A&P Sports, an agency representing 100–150 power conference football players.
“Right now, there’s a ton of action,” Bloom said. “A lot of the contracts we negotiated in December, we’re going to have to renegotiate them in the spring. As people leave and guys move up the depth chart, their contract increases in value.”
The most sought-after positions are offensive and defensive linemen and cornerbacks, Bloom said. Prices are rising as schools are readying to frontload dollars—some of them upwards of $20 million this spring alone, says Tommy Gray, the CEO for Altius, a company that provides dozens of schools with consultation and strategic planning.
“It’s a mad dash,” Gray said, “to frontload,” a term to describe universities designing booster-backed NIL deals in a way that distributes to athletes a majority of the compensation before they become subject to the new Deloitte-run clearinghouse on July 1. The legality of the clearinghouse remains a question—it could trigger legal challenges—but either way, many school-affiliated collectives are funneling millions of dollars to players before the deadline.
“I’ve got some guys who were shaky about going into the portal,” Bloom said. “One got an offer for $800,000 to $1.2 million in December. Now, that guy is getting $2 million offers.”
As an industry, college sports barrels into its most pivotal months in decades.
Will the settlement be approved?
Will Congress pass federal legislation?
Will the football portal be a free-for-all?
The answer to the last question is clear.
“We’re seeing the numbers increasing,” Bloom said. “Collectives are still alive and well. It’s already a short portal as it is. It’s going to be slammed.”
