All D1 schools have to participate in the multibillion dollar payment to past and current athletes. Only P4/5 schools have to participate in revenue sharing.
Agreed we don’t yet know the final terms of the settlement.
1 Like
- There is already enough criticism within these schools that athletes have an “unfair” admissions advantage or “don’t deserve” admission to the Ivy League schools that they attend. There is also criticism that their athletes dramatically diverge from the demographics of the overall student body. Paying the same athletes to play will increase the criticism.
- In 2020, 2 Ivy League schools signaled their intent to drop varsity programs because of financial cost. Adopting the House settlement will increase cost for all D1 athletics departments. Does every Ivy school really need to field 31-42 teams?
- Unless the Ivy League follows suit and allows athletics scholarships and embraces NIL collectives, it could have more trouble competing against other D1 schools in recruiting athletes in some of their varsity sports. All of this is speculative because no one knows how schools will react to the settlement. Why stay in Division 1 if your teams are consistently uncompetitive? You can do the same thing in D3 and be even more successful.
Maybe the biggest downside is one thing BUMD mentioned…paying athletes/athletes making money is against the Ivy charter and their current ethos.
OTOH, they admit some students who are better athletes than academics, and have always done that, so there are plenty of examples of them violating their charter/ethos. Of course if coaches don’t have some level of control over the athletes they can get, the Ivy schools would have a tougher time getting coaches.
I don’t think ivies will have additional recruiting challenges in most sports if they stay D1 post House settlement.
I do wonder what will happen in the Ivy League if Johnson vs NCAA is a win for the athletes and all athletes become employees.
The Ivy League has given no indication they plan on opting in. It’s business as usual as far as I can tell.
3 Likes
They have to pay athletes from the pre-NIL era (IIRC 2016-2021?), so that includes some current athletes too), under that component of the settlement.
They do not have to opt in to revenue sharing, and I wouldn’t expect them to.
1 Like
My understanding is that they have to fund part of the settlement but that Ivy athletes will see little to no money from this.
Are you saying the 2016-21 Ivy athletes that qualify for payment under the settlement (still being negotiated) would be paid less than athletes from other non-P4/5 conferences? That could be, I haven’t seen projected payout per athlete by conference.
ETA: My understanding is that conferences/schools will have to pay out money equal to what the lawsuit settlement says, is that not the case?
Agree with TonyGrace:
- Ivy will stay status quo and remain the Ivy League and not opt in
- Even better non-revenue athletes will trickle through the Ivy system
- Athletes will continue to get the same admission preference or slightly less based on increased supply of athletes
- basketball and football with mostly be student-athletes with few going pro after college
3 Likes
This is what ChatGPT says (since I don’t know exactly details, just following discussions surrounding Ivy/non-revenue sports community)
Under the House v. NCAA settlement, individual payouts vary significantly based on the sport and conference in which an athlete competed. Football players in the Power Five conferences (e.g., ACC, Big Ten, SEC) are expected to receive the highest payments, with some individuals potentially earning up to $1.85 million, depending on their playing time and influence on the conference’s revenue. The average payout for these football and men’s basketball players is projected at around $135,000. Power Five women’s basketball players are also prioritized, with an average expected payout of approximately $35,000.
Athletes in other sports, or those who played outside the Power Five, are eligible but will likely receive significantly lower payouts, often ranging from hundreds to a few thousand dollars. This is due to the revenue contribution from sports like football and men’s basketball, which drive the majority of media and conference revenue. The settlement allocates funds accordingly, favoring athletes in these high-revenue sports over those in non-revenue or Olympic sports     .
This distribution plan aligns with the media revenue generated by each sport, with Power Five conferences able to tap into a larger settlement pool, reflecting their financial impact on NCAA earnings. Over 400,000 athletes are potentially eligible to file claims, depending on their participation during the covered period from 2016 to 2023.
ETA - one of the reasons non-P4 conferences are upset is that they are funding a significant portion of the P4 payments. My understanding is also that even within P4 they’ve managed to somehow “protect” football money and most of the funding will come out of basketball and other sports.
2 Likes
I get it, but big picture is NCAA is funding 42% of it (for the first component of the lawsuit, the back pay for pre-NIL years), so there’s that.
Per the agreement, the NCAA will pay 42% of the settlement amount outright, and the remaining 58% will be split among member institutions. Of that 58%, 40% will be paid by the power conference schools, with the other 60% distributed among the rest of D1.
Caveat again…the details of the settlement aren’t final.
My point was simply that the idea of rich kids getting richer because they are an Ivy athlete is completely unfounded.
That certainly wasn’t what I said/inferred? I don’t feel that way at all, my point continues to be the Ivies are going to have to do things they want to do (starting with paying some athletes who played from 2016-21), and who knows what the consequences of those things will be.
I didn’t think you did - it was one of the arguments made up thread.
1 Like
The Ivy athletes that get paid will be hundreds of dollars to perhaps a thousand or two I bet. A nice little bit of spending money, but certainly not on the order of magnitude of the other conferences.
2 Likes
I wonder if the payments will be considered income (taxable)? Those getting substantial amounts could find themselves in a 40% tax bracket and no way to shield it.
Not a tax lawyer, but generally litigation settlement amounts are not taxable.
Well it depends on what they are for. Pain and suffering= not taxable. Lost wages, usually taxable.
Going forward, if these amounts are ‘profit sharing’ or income, it would be taxable (or if they become employees), so why shouldn’t past payments for NIL be taxable? They are being paid for services performed during their playing days.
2 Likes
I never meant to suggest that there is any financial windfall. My point is that the concept of rich families, compromising a significant portion of the student population, getting any additional financial advantage to attend very expensive schools may come across to some as being very unfair. This is on top of the impression that they already have any easier path to admission.
But overall, I am not in disagreement with you and others. Depending on the final ruling of the House settlement and other cases, the disadvantages I tried to point out may end up being inconsequential. I just think it’s premature to make predictions until the dust settles.
But that’s been happening for years. Athletes at schools like Stanford and Duke and Vandy had wealthy kids getting admission boost plus (some) full scholarships. A few years ago, they starting giving out stipends, and in some conferences guaranteed scholarships for 4 years even if the student stopped playing the sport after 2 years. Yes, those who leave Stanford before graduating have the right to return tuition free to finish their degrees if they’ve completed their ‘contract’ to play for 2 years. They get their scholarships even if they (or their families) can afford to pay full tuition.
I don’t think most people care or want the schools to stop recruiting athletes.
1 Like
Regardless, if it’s a problem anywhere is at these schools, not the Ivies, where the only money anyone is getting is need based, regardless of athletic status. I take a lot more issue with a football player that barely keeps up with minimal academic obligations getting millions from a state funded school.
3 Likes