After another court defeat, the NCAA halted investigations into booster-backed collectives or other third parties that enter into name, image and likeness compensation deals with Division I athletes.
In a letter sent to member schools on Friday, NCAA President Charlie Baker said the Division I board of directors directed law enforcement personnel “to stop and not begin investigations involving the involvement of third parties in activities related to NIL”.
The move comes a week after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia. The antitrust lawsuit challenges the NCAA's rules against recruiting incentives, saying they inhibit athletes' ability to profit from their celebrity and fame.
“There will be no sanction for conduct that occurs pursuant to the court order while it is in effect,” Baker wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press. “I agree with this decision, while progress toward long-term solutions is underway and as we await discussions with attorneys general. In less than ideal circumstances, this at least gives members notice of board leadership related to law enforcement.”
The judge's decision had sparked speculation about whether the NCAA would file a remote appeal as it struggles to maintain its decades-long model of amateurism for athletes in the face of rapid changes. Baker noted that three specific policies related to NIL compensation remain in effect and will be enforced, including prohibitions on schools paying athletes directly and any payments or compensation tied specifically to athletic performance.
The move was not a surprise.
“The NCAA is essentially saying we're not going to do something that's considered illegal,” said Joshua Lens, a former lawyer and college athletics administrator who is now an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas.
Lens also noted that Baker avoided mentioning Congress in his statement.
“That's fascinating to me because almost all of his statements in the last few months, if not longer, have been kind of an open plea for Congress to get involved,” Lens said. “That wasn't mentioned today.”
Those who work for and with the booster-funded collectives that handle millions of dollars in NIL deals with college athletes say eliminating antiquated recruiting rules will bring more clarity and simply allow what was once prohibited.
The NCAA's only jurisdiction over collectives has been rules prohibiting boosters from participating in recruiting and offering money or anything of value to attend certain schools.
Even then, a school ran the risk of being punished if a group broke those rules. That's what happened in Tennessee, which drew NCAA scrutiny over NIL agreements between athletes and The Vol Club, run by Spyre Sports Group, a marketing agency.
The NCAA altered its enforcement agenda a week after Tennessee and Virginia essentially celebrated a victory in their public fight against the sanctioning body.
“Their hands were forced a little bit because of that Tennessee ruling,” said Kasey Havekost, a former Division I athlete who is now a higher education attorney at Bricker Graydon. “However, the NCAA is still fighting. They have to do it; that's all they have left.
“But this hurts them. At this point, it's death by a thousand paper cuts.”
Officials from both the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee attorney general's office declined to comment Friday.
Faced with a wave of state laws clearing the way for college athletes to earn money based on their celebrity, the NCAA lifted its ban in 2021 and made clear that its roughly 500,000 athletes are still considered amateurs who cannot be pay to play. NIL was not intended to be a substitute for paid college athletes, but that is what it has become.
Baker and the NCAA have so far unsuccessfully sought a limited antitrust exemption from Congress to establish rules they say will preserve the amateur model of college athletics. That model is coming under fire in multiple lawsuits and efforts by athletes to be considered school employees who can seek compensation, including collective bargaining rights.
While Baker has spent much of his first year on the NCAA job in Washington meeting with lawmakers, he has stressed to members that they need to find their own solutions.
In December, Baker proposed a dramatic change in how schools competing at the highest level of college sports compensate their athletes.
Baker's so-called DI Project requires all 363 Division I schools to offer unlimited educational benefits and enter into NIL licensing agreements with athletes. The hope is that by bringing NIL activities in-house, the need for collectives to organize compensation and pay athletes can be lessened.
Baker also proposed creating a new Division I level, where schools would be required to pay at least $30,000 a year to at least half of their athletes.
The proposal for a new Division I level was received coolly by many of whose schools would be most affected, but Baker has emphasized that the idea was intended to start conversations about possible solutions.
The Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference, the richest and most powerful leagues in Division I, formed a joint advisory committee last month to try to address the many problems facing college sports.
“Now we have this judge indicating that he is in favor of the NCAA continuing to not allow schools to compensate directly for NIL,” Lens said. “So we're starting to go around in circles a little bit as we try to figure this out.”
