[BostonCard]

Unfortunately, the judge did propose a remedy for the barring of payments by having the schools pay, but I think that was not really the point.

Why "unfortunately".  That is what the judge ruled, and in so doing wound up tying NIL right to direct payments to athletes.  Now, this may have been an attempt to give the NCAA some deference in controlling how athletes got paid for the NIL because of she found the NCAA's concerns about the corrosive potential of third party money to be persuasive.  If you have the ruling, and it says that, I would be interested to read it.  But otherwise, I see this is a series of rulings by the same judge (who ruled in both O'Bannon v. NCAA on NIL and Alston v. NCAA on limits to cost-of-attendance that basically say that the NCAA's limits on payments to athletes, whether for their NIL or for their labor, are trash.

You are right that we haven't gotten to whether the next step, which is not whether schools are required to pay.  As I see it, the first thing will be a decision that gets rid of all limits on payments to athletes from all sources.  The remedy for Alston v. NCAA was pretty narrow, but given that it was decided unanimously, I'm sure someone will want to test whether the payments have to be of an educational nature.  If that flies, then it seems likely that we will see a Title IX challenge once it becomes clear that payments will be disparate between men and women.

BC

[BostonCard]

Unfortunately, the judge did propose a remedy for the barring of payments by having the schools pay, but I think that was not really the point.

Why "unfortunately".  That is what the judge ruled, and in so doing wound up tying NIL right to direct payments to athletes.  Now, this may have been an attempt to give the NCAA some deference in controlling how athletes got paid for the NIL because of she found the NCAA's concerns about the corrosive potential of third party money to be persuasive.  If you have the ruling, and it says that, I would be interested to read it.  But otherwise, I see this is a series of rulings by the same judge (who ruled in both O'Bannon v. NCAA on NIL and Alston v. NCAA on limits to cost-of-attendance that basically say that the NCAA's limits on payments to athletes, whether for their NIL or for their labor, are trash.

You are right that we haven't gotten to whether the next step, which is not whether schools are required to pay.  As I see it, the first thing will be a decision that gets rid of all limits on payments to athletes from all sources.  The remedy for Alston v. NCAA was pretty narrow, but given that it was decided unanimously, I'm sure someone will want to test whether the payments have to be of an educational nature.  If that flies, then it seems likely that we will see a Title IX challenge once it becomes clear that payments will be disparate between men and women.

BC