In the House v. NCAA hearing, an NCAA attorney said not restricting NIL collectives would put in question if there would "be a settlement to submit." Plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Kessler to On3: "The alternative is litigation." via Pete Nakos: on3.com/nil/news/house…

Thank you!! I was shocked this didn't come up during the hearing. This is why it's such a deal breaker for the NCAA. They can't just keep the current language in place like Judge Wilken suggested. They need that antitrust release.

Caught those reactions. NCAA attorney was very animated and clearly wanted it known that there were some major dealbreakers and that he had growing doubts that the parties could reach a deal after today. x.com/samcehrlich/st…

Great summary of the hearing here.

The House settlement — the one that could bring revenue sharing to college sports by next fall — got a lot more complicated Thursday night. Here’s why: washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/09…

This also happened during the hearing:

Jesse makes some great points. There is a HUGE disconnect between Judge Wilken and NCAA counsel. Wilken sees what is largely a free market out there, so limiting NIL is taking away rights. The NCAA will obviously never admit that. That's really the only thing holding this up.

This is it.

Yup. Because while one is "pay-for-play", the other is somehow not?

It will be interesting to see if any of this changes in the next three weeks. on3.com/nil/news/house…

This delineation was about the point where Judge Wilken rolled her eyes/shook her head as the NCAA argued these were different things. In sum, time is a flat circle, etc.

This is the NCAA's conundrum. If NCAA rejects a free (or more free) market for NIL, then settlement falls apart and litigation resumes, and NCAA probably loses given Judge Wilken's views. But NCAA worries NIL has become pay-for-play. If only NCAA had listened to Ed O'Bannon.

Statement from The Collective Association on the House settlement hearing: