EA Sports College Football 25 a Massive Success, NCAA Still in Hot Water + ICYMI | Newsletter #258
Today’s Thursday newsletter includes highlights from this week, important news from last week, and what to watch for.
Keep up to date on all of our newsletters and content by checking out past Optimum Sports Consulting Newsletters, and following us on Twitter!
Recapping Major News This Week:
EA Sports College Football 2025 Generates Half a Billion Dollars in Sales
Electronic Arts shared that College Football 25 brought over $500 million in sales in less than two weeks, as well as 5 million unique players to the game through its first week.
EA Sports last issued college football video game was back in 2013, after which the company announced that it was discontinuing the game. A major factor in originally discontinuing the game was a court ruling that forced EA Sports to pay compensation to athletes who had previously been included in the product but were not paid. After the introduction of NIL, EA announced they’d bring the back.
EA Sports reportedly considered $150 million in revenue to be a barometer for success for the CFB 25 game. With over $500 million in sales already, the game has been a massive success.
CLICK HERE to learn more.
Despite Submitting a Settlement With the Hopes to Mitigate the NCAA’s Antitrust Liability, the NCAA is Still at Risk of Future Lawsuits
The House settlement may have brought more questions than answers. While settlement is meant to close the door on pre-existing antitrust claims against the NCAA - House, Hubbard, and Carter - the settlement does not protect the NCAA from all antitrust claims, such as the ongoing Fontenot case, as well as other potential claims.
The only way for the NCAA to completely insulate itself from further antitrust lawsuits is by either opening the door to athlete collective bargaining or securing an antitrust exemption from Congress. While the NCAA is hoping that Congress grants them an antitrust exemption, the submitted House settlement shows no interest in athlete collective bargaining.
Furthermore, athletes that opt out of the settlement agreement, would still be able to bring antitrust claims against the NCAA. The House settlement may lead to other lawsuits as well. In particular, the settlement could lead to claims against the NCAA for (a) its attempt to drastically limit and monitor collectives, and (b) its failure to give any Title IX guidance, among other things.
CLICK HERE to learn more.
Quick Hitter News:
The attorneys general of Montana and South Dakota are contemplating taking legal action to challenge aspects of the House v. NCAA deal - LINK
Louisville's NIL collective launches athlete-driven media network - LINK
Miami five-star basketball commit, Jalil Bethea, joins Klutch Athletics by New Balance brand - LINK
Class of 2027 QB Derrick Baker lands NIL deal with Leaf Trading Cards - LINK
ICYMI
NCAA House Settlement Handed to Judge for Review
The NCAA and power conferences on Friday filed their agreement in the settlement of three antitrust lawsuits (House, Hubbard and Carter), which would take effect at the start of the 2025-26 academic year next summer or fall.
Among other things, the settlement will create an athlete revenue sharing system, expand scholarships to full rosters, and create an enforcement system of arbitration overseen by the courts that would have a drastic impact on athletes, schools, and NIL collectives.
If approved, a court-appointed “special master” will settle disputes over compliance and interpretation matters about the revenue-sharing model; and, a third arbiter is charged with hearing and ruling on appeals from athletes or schools found to have violated rules connected to the new model.
The plaintiff attorneys, separately filed documents that detail how they plan to distribute the nearly $2.8 billion in back damages to former players over a 10-year period. 83% of the back pay — $2.3 billion — is expected to go to an estimated 19,000 football and men’s basketball players. The first back payments are due this coming spring after, presumably, the settlement is approved by Judge Claudia Wilken.
CLICK HERE for further details into the historic deal.
What To Watch For: Judge Wilken’s Decision to Approve or Deny the House Settlement
Although some may believe that the submission of the House settlement means that the agreement will take effect next year, the deal must still be approved by Judge Claudia Wilken. Her approval is not a foregone conclusion. Agreeing to settle does not mean that you have settled. It must still be approved by the Judge presiding over the case. And as heavily reported since the deal has been made public, the settlement does not address many of the current issues still plaguing the NCAA - including many of those that the deal is meant to address.
This reality was made evident in the recent rejection of the UFC’s $355 settlement deal. U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware denied motions by the UFC and fighters for preliminary approval in their $335 million settlement in the Le v. Zuffa case. In particular, Boulware voiced objections to the UFC for attempting to settle two class action lawsuits, Cung Le et al. v. Zuffa and Kajan Johnson et al. v. Zuffa—which together cover about 2,000 UFC fighters. As a result, the UFC and fighter may have to settle these suits as two seperate deals. Given the two settlements similarities as deals that attempted to settle multiple antitrust suits with one deal, the UFC’s rejection highlights the fact that the NCAA merely filing the settlement with judge Wilken doesn’t mean it will be approved.
Thanks for Reading!
Keep up to date on all of our newsletters and content by checking out past Optimum Sports Consulting Newsletters, and following us on Twitter!