Changes are coming to college sports during the 2024-25 season, and more could be on the way. The NCAA is facing a hard deadline in a week to decide on a settlement in the House v. NCAA case, On3’s Eric Prisbell reported.
Among the options is a revenue sharing model with athletes – an idea that went from rarely discussed publicly to almost inevitable over the last year. But there’s also the issue of athletes as employees so collective bargaining can exist and potentially help prevent future lawsuits. That issue isn’t as cut-and-dry.
Count Nebraska’s Matt Rhule in favor of sharing revenue with the athletes, although he – like many – has plenty of questions about what it would look like. Ultimately, though, he argued there’s plenty of “good” stories about athletes profiting off their name, image and likeness to show the upside.
Document reveals NCAA’s urgent need to reach settlement in House case
“I think the first thing to recognize is that this is gonna be decided by lawyers and football people. There’s so many ramifications for it,” Rhule said on SiriusXM College. “Where’s the money gonna go? Is it gonna be split 50/50 via Title IX? Is it gonna prevent us from being sued for 10 years, 20 years? What’s gonna happen? There are so many questions. I think a model whereby there is revenue sharing with the players seems fair. I just don’t know how many schools are gonna be able to do it.
“We’re blessed here at Nebraska. We’re gonna fully fund everything that you’re allowed to do. And I’ve never seen anything wrong with investing in young people. I mean, for every story you hear about kids showing up in Ferrari Testarossas and all that stuff, I can tell you seven stories about kids that are sending money home or taking care of a sister or taking care of a mother. Guys are doing amazing things. They’re preparing for the future. So I think a model where there’s revenue sharing would be great.”
But, Rhule said, that opens up another issue.
“I think the key thing will always be whether they’re employees or not,” he said.
Matt Rhule: ‘I think a lot of coaches would like players to be employees’
As conference leaders weigh their next steps regarding the settlement in the House case, the NCAA also has to find a way to protect itself from future litigation. Without collective bargaining, lawsuits could continue to challenge the association’s rules.
Athlete employment would pave the way for collective bargaining, and it would also allow them to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board also plays a role in that conversation as it weighs the Dartmouth men’s basketball team’s case, as well as another involving USC’s football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball teams. The NCAA has long opposed athletes as employees.
But Matt Rhule took a different tone. He gets the sense coaches across the country support athletes as employees for two important reasons: tampering and transparency.
“I think a lot of coaches would like the players to be employees – understanding the ramifications of that, understanding the need for collective bargaining,” Rhule said. “But I think for all of us, it’s the, ‘Hey, I have the ability to transfer. But I can also get paid and get tampered with.’ And then I have to call coaches all the time and say, ‘Coach, can you please tell your guys to stop calling so-and-so?’ And it’s gotten more and more brazen each year.
“A model like the NFL where guys are under contract – whether it be for a year, two years, three years, four years – I just think at least there’s way more transparency because there’s no transparency in contracts right now. There’s no transparency in terms or anything like that. I don’t know if that’s good for young people moving forward not to have things written out and be done the right way.”
The May 23 deadline looms as a pivotal day for college athletics. Billions of dollars are on the line, and it could mark the start of a new era.
The post Matt Rhule weighs in on potential revenue sharing model, ‘transparency’ if athletes become employees appeared first on On3.