A group of athletes led by Big Ten women's basketball players sent a letter to NCAA president Charlie Baker on Wednesday asking the association to drop its proposed restrictions on the types of name, image and likeness deals players are allowed to sign with third-party groups.
The letter is signed by USC captain Dominique Darius, who told ESPN she sent it on behalf of roughly 100 athletes from different schools and sports. The letter specifically asks the NCAA to drop the proposed portion of an industry-shifting antitrust settlement negotiated by the NCAA, its conferences and attorneys representing all Division 1 athletes that would give the association authority to determine which NIL deals are for "valid business purposes."
Darius, Michigan senior Greta Kampschroeder, and Northwestern seniors Caileigh Walsh and Melannie Daley said they don't believe players have been given enough information about the settlement or have had a large enough voice in shaping the future of their sports. Darius said she and others would consider formally objecting to the settlement deal if it's not amended to get rid of the NIL restrictions.
"We hope it doesn't get to that point," Darius said. "It's a good question. We have the courage to speak up if need be. We hope this helps the NCAA to pivot in the right direction that's more beneficial for athletes."
The NCAA and its most powerful conferences agreed in May to settle a trio of antitrust lawsuits that claim the association has illegally restricted the earning power of athletes in a variety of ways. If the settlement is approved, the NCAA has agreed to allow schools to share revenue directly with players up to a certain limit -- which is expected to be a little more than $20 million per school next school year and increase annually.
The deal includes a provision that would give the NCAA more leeway to stop booster collectives from using NIL deals as a de facto salary -- what the association and its lawyers call "pay for play." The NCAA and an arbitrator would be able to stop deals between an athlete and some third-party groups that they deem to exceed the player's fair market value.
"We don't think that makes sense," Kampschroeder said. "We think the free market should determine our fair market value, not the NCAA."
The NCAA acknowledged receiving the players' letter and provided a statement to ESPN that said the association "fully supports college athletes profiting from their NIL" and is "moving forward with a landmark settlement that would deliver new financial benefits to student-athletes."
The plaintiffs' attorneys filed a revised version of the settlement terms Thursday night that narrows the types of potential NIL deals that could be restricted, but leaves in place a mechanism for the NCAA to stop collectives from paying athletes via "faux" NIL deals. The new terms create a category of "associated entities or individuals" who show a track record of donating money to the athletic department of each school. Under the new proposed terms, the NCAA would be allowed to prohibit deals provided by anyone in the new category if the association decides they are not for a "valid business purpose." Athletes and schools would be able to appeal those decisions in arbitration.
The changes came in response to concerns that Judge Claudia Wilken raised during a hearing for preliminary approval earlier this month. She told the lawyers they needed to "go back to the drawing board." Rakesh Kilaru, lead attorney for the NCAA, told Wilken that getting rid of the clause might be a dealbreaker for the NCAA and its schools. School administrators at power-conference schools have pushed hard to include the ability to regulate collectives in the settlement. Without it, they fear that competitors will use collectives to circumvent the spending cap established for schools.
The plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the court filing Thursday that the court must decide "whether permitting this one category of NCAA NIL restrictions to continue to exist is fair and reasonable to the injunctive class where it is more than offset by the tens of billions of dollars in other benefits the agreement allows."
The basketball players told ESPN that they believe they should have the same full freedom to sign endorsement deals that every other student on campus has.
If Wilken does grant preliminary approval to the new version of the settlement, athletes will have a period of several months when they will be able to raise objections to terms of the deal or to opt out of the class action group. The settlement includes a clause that states if a certain number of players opt out, the deal is void. The specific number of opt-outs needed to trigger that clause is redacted in the public version of the settlement submitted in court filings. Darius said the players were not sure yet whether they would exercise that option.
The basketball players said they were concerned that so far they haven't had a large enough voice in a process that could be reshaping at least the next 10 years of the college sports industry. All four players who spoke to ESPN said they have not received any information about the pending deal from their schools.
"There has been absolutely zero communication," Walsh said. "Northwestern isn't telling us anything about it, so we're trying to get our hands on as much information about it as we can."
A spokesman for Northwestern's athletic department declined to comment. USC did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman at Michigan said the school is waiting to communicate with its athletes until there is a definitive resolution to the case to avoid creating "a collection of hypothetical scenarios for our student-athletes that may or may not come to fruition."
The players started meeting informally in recent weeks to help each other learn more about settlement and its implications for creating a more professional version of college sports.
"It deeply bothers me that people are making decisions without us having any say in it," Daley said. "Decisions are being made above our heads about what we deserve in compensation."
The players said that they were in favor of the revenue sharing agreement included in the settlement and want to see it in place by the start of next year. They said they hope the settlement provides a jumping-off point for players to have more influence over other issues such as health, safety and academics. Kampschroeder said the players weren't yet sure whether that larger voice would be best coming from a formal players' union or some other form of representation, but that they were eager to learn more about their options.
"I do hope revenue sharing can be the start of more conversations," she said. "We want to have a seat at the table while everyone is having those conversations."
All four players who spoke to ESPN are in the final season of their college careers, but they said they are aiming to make sure they leave the best possible scenario for their younger teammates and future generations of players.
"This is a business, we know that. It's obviously a business," Darius said. "It's time for the NCAA to recognize that and treat it like that. ... The settlement is the first step in becoming a respected business."