• Extra Points
  • Posts
  • GUEST POST: The Sexist and Racist Greedy Takeover of College Sports

GUEST POST: The Sexist and Racist Greedy Takeover of College Sports

Not everybody is a fan of the House settlement

Good morning, and thanks for your continued support of Extra Points.

The industry expectation right now is that even though Judge Wilken had some concerns about roster limits and how future athletes might fit into the settlement, that she will eventually approve the landmark House v NCAA settlement in the near future. This settlement will create a structure to allow schools to pay athletes directly, and will reshape the legal and legislative near future of college sports.

There are a good number of people in and around college athletics who broadly approve of the settlement, and not just because it saves the NCAA from going to court and losing a gazillion dollars. But there are also a lot of folks who do not like the settlement.

Today, in a guest post, I want to pass the mic to one of those people.

Donna Lopiano is the President and founder of Sports Management Resources. But you might recognize her from her work with The Drake Group, Women’s Sports Foundation, or as the groundbreaking women’s athletic director at the University of Texas. She’s forgotten more about women in college athletics than most of us will ever learn.

I don’t know if I personally agree with every single thing laid out here, but I’m more than happy to run Dr. Lopiano’s editorial here, and believe her perspective is worth considering.

Her remarks follow below:

The proposed settlement in the House-Carter-Hubbard v. NCAA and Power Five conferences (68 schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) antitrust lawsuits represents a perilous juncture in the landscape of collegiate athletics. This legal battle centers around whether athletes at these institutions, if not for NCAA rules, would have been compensated for their names, images, and likenesses (NILs) and the revenue they generated. 

The settlement provides, among other things, that the NCAA will make past damage payments to athletes at these schools valued at $2.8 billion and mandates more than $20 billion in future payments to athletes over the next ten years. It also raises significant concerns about the future of college athletics—how it will affect the financial equities among the NCAA’s 1,100 schools, Title IX compliance, and the integrity of higher education and the NCAA in service of ‘student’ athletes.

Figuratively, the antitrust settlement deal was made in a room with seven prime decision-makers: the defendant NCAA President and four of the defendant Power Five commissioners (hereafter referred to as the “P-4” because all but two of the Pac-12 members have fled to the other four conferences, putting the continued existence of that entity in question) and two plaintiffs’ attorneys. 

The NCAA and conference leaders earn multi-million-dollar salaries running their respective billion-dollar college sport businesses. The  with financial success of those businesses, is primarily based on broadcast television media rights fees paid for hugely popular college football and basketball contests and championships and the largess of wealthy donors.  The two law firms of the wealthy, powerful, and successful antitrust attorneys representing the economically exploited athlete defendants likely will receive a half-billion-dollar payday if the settlement is approved.

 All the decision-makers are male and White. Each member of the cabal (hereafter “Cabal”) pledged to maintain a high level of secrecy. Should college presidents, members of Congress, alumni, the media, or the general public doubt the motivation and self-interest of this group?  Would they be surprised if the settlement terms resulted in laying the groundwork for a future Big Ten/SEC dominated college version of the NFL that would continue to line the revenue pockets of the top 30 or so P-4 elite athletics programs (30-35 being the magic pro sport business number that maximizes league and individual member revenues)?

Make no bones about it, the resulting settlement compact is an artful sexist and racist subterfuge

Want to read the rest of the newsletter? Subscribe today!

Premium Subscriptions make Extra Points possible. Upgrade today to get access to everything we write:

Already a paying subscriber? Sign In.

Reply

or to participate.