By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
The former House speaker and a sponsor of a law enabling Michigan student athletes to own their name, image and likeness rights for financial compensation is asking the attorney general to weigh in on a federal lawsuit he says could lead to violations of state law by universities.
On April 25, Rep. Joe Tate (D-Detroit) sent a letter to Attorney General Dana Nessel for an opinion on what effect the preliminary settlement in the federal House v. NCAA lawsuit could have on PA 366 of 2020.
If Nessel were to issue an opinion, it could have serious implications for universities in the wake of the preliminary settlement.
The federal lawsuit was a $2.8 billion class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by college athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association and multiple top college sports conferences.
Under the preliminary settlement, schools would be able to, effective July 1, directly provide NIL payments to student athletes, whereas in recent years the payments have come exclusively from booster groups or NIL collectives.
“I am concerned that if our universities opt-in to the terms of the settlement or otherwise comply with NCAA and conference NIL restrictions permitted in the settlement, they would be in violation of our NIL law,” Tate wrote.
The request was first noted by FOIA Services Michigan on Monday.
What is now PA 366 of 2020 and PA 367 of 2020 were signed in late 2020 and became effective December 31, 2022.
As passed, the 2020 law prohibits institutions from upholding any rules or limitations preventing a student from participating in athletics based on earning compensation for use of their name, image or likeness.
Specifically, the NCAA would not be allowed to prevent compensation to student athletes under the Michigan law.
Tate wrote that under the preliminary settlement, the NCAA, college sports conferences or any “designated enforcement entity” which under PA 366 of 2020 means an organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics would be able to impose and enforce NIL restrictions on college athletes. This, he wrote, could severely impact the ability of student athletes to make money from NIL collectives or boosters.
He added that several states have NIL laws blocking universities from complying with the kind of restrictions the NCAA could impose under the preliminary settlement.
Tate pointed to comments made by the plaintiffs and the NCAA in March that the settlement only addresses antitrust claims and does nothing to release non-compliance with state NIL laws, nor does it have any bearing on existing state NIL laws that may already provide for broader NIL compensation.
“Michigan and these other states adopted NIL laws specifically to prevent the NCAA and conferences from imposing such unjust restrictions,” Tate wrote. “I fear that our universities are unaware of this conflict as some have indicated their intention to opt-in to the settlement. Our universities much be made aware of this conflict and their legal obligation to follow PA 366’20. Moreover, our universities’ athletes and recruits must have clarity about their rights and freedoms under our law.”
Tate, in his letter, outlines seven items in which he asks Nessel for her opinion about PA 366 of 2020 assuming the preliminary settlement in House v. NCAA is given final approval.
The first is whether Michigan’s law prohibits the state’s universities from complying with or upholding any rules that could result in restrictions on student athletes from obtaining NIL pay from athletic boosters or collectives.
Tate also asks if Michigan universities would be violating PA 366 of 2020 if they opt-in to the settlement agreement or if they would be in violation of state law if they complied with any NCAA and conference restrictions and enforcement outlined in the settlement.
The representative also asked if any university that has already opted into the settlement must rescind its opt-in to comply with state law.
He asked if the law states that nothing prohibits Michigan universities from entering NIL agreements and paying NIL compensation.
Tate also ask whether the law prohibits universities from paying NIL to prospective college athletes but permits universities to enter NIL agreements with prospective college athletes.
Tate lastly asked if the NCAA, conferences, and any designated enforcement entities would be in violation of the state NIL law if imposing any restrictions were attempted against Michigan universities or student athletes.
Gongwer News Service
The former House speaker and a sponsor of a law enabling Michigan student athletes to own their name, image and likeness rights for financial compensation is asking the attorney general to weigh in on a federal lawsuit he says could lead to violations of state law by universities.
On April 25, Rep. Joe Tate (D-Detroit) sent a letter to Attorney General Dana Nessel for an opinion on what effect the preliminary settlement in the federal House v. NCAA lawsuit could have on PA 366 of 2020.
If Nessel were to issue an opinion, it could have serious implications for universities in the wake of the preliminary settlement.
The federal lawsuit was a $2.8 billion class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by college athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association and multiple top college sports conferences.
Under the preliminary settlement, schools would be able to, effective July 1, directly provide NIL payments to student athletes, whereas in recent years the payments have come exclusively from booster groups or NIL collectives.
“I am concerned that if our universities opt-in to the terms of the settlement or otherwise comply with NCAA and conference NIL restrictions permitted in the settlement, they would be in violation of our NIL law,” Tate wrote.
The request was first noted by FOIA Services Michigan on Monday.
What is now PA 366 of 2020 and PA 367 of 2020 were signed in late 2020 and became effective December 31, 2022.
As passed, the 2020 law prohibits institutions from upholding any rules or limitations preventing a student from participating in athletics based on earning compensation for use of their name, image or likeness.
Specifically, the NCAA would not be allowed to prevent compensation to student athletes under the Michigan law.
Tate wrote that under the preliminary settlement, the NCAA, college sports conferences or any “designated enforcement entity” which under PA 366 of 2020 means an organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics would be able to impose and enforce NIL restrictions on college athletes. This, he wrote, could severely impact the ability of student athletes to make money from NIL collectives or boosters.
He added that several states have NIL laws blocking universities from complying with the kind of restrictions the NCAA could impose under the preliminary settlement.
Tate pointed to comments made by the plaintiffs and the NCAA in March that the settlement only addresses antitrust claims and does nothing to release non-compliance with state NIL laws, nor does it have any bearing on existing state NIL laws that may already provide for broader NIL compensation.
“Michigan and these other states adopted NIL laws specifically to prevent the NCAA and conferences from imposing such unjust restrictions,” Tate wrote. “I fear that our universities are unaware of this conflict as some have indicated their intention to opt-in to the settlement. Our universities much be made aware of this conflict and their legal obligation to follow PA 366’20. Moreover, our universities’ athletes and recruits must have clarity about their rights and freedoms under our law.”
Tate, in his letter, outlines seven items in which he asks Nessel for her opinion about PA 366 of 2020 assuming the preliminary settlement in House v. NCAA is given final approval.
The first is whether Michigan’s law prohibits the state’s universities from complying with or upholding any rules that could result in restrictions on student athletes from obtaining NIL pay from athletic boosters or collectives.
Tate also asks if Michigan universities would be violating PA 366 of 2020 if they opt-in to the settlement agreement or if they would be in violation of state law if they complied with any NCAA and conference restrictions and enforcement outlined in the settlement.
The representative also asked if any university that has already opted into the settlement must rescind its opt-in to comply with state law.
He asked if the law states that nothing prohibits Michigan universities from entering NIL agreements and paying NIL compensation.
Tate also ask whether the law prohibits universities from paying NIL to prospective college athletes but permits universities to enter NIL agreements with prospective college athletes.
Tate lastly asked if the NCAA, conferences, and any designated enforcement entities would be in violation of the state NIL law if imposing any restrictions were attempted against Michigan universities or student athletes.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
