When the page turns on 2024, it will be time to say goodbye, once and for all, to the amateur athlete in college sports. In theory, the concept held on stubbornly via the quaint and now all-but-dead notion that student-athletes played only for pride, a scholarship and some meal money. In practice, the amateurs have been disappearing for years, washed away by the steady millions, now billions, that have flowed into college athletics, mostly through football and basketball both through legitimate and illicit means. In the coming year, the last vestiges of amateur college sports are expected to officially sputter out — the final step of a journey that has felt inevitable since 2021. That’s when the Supreme Court laid the foundation for paying college players in exchange for promotions — on social media, TV, video games, you name it — featuring their name, image or likeness (NIL). The changes have come in spasms so far, not always well thought out, not always fair and not regulated by any single entity like the NCAA or federal government, but rather by a collection of state laws, along with rules at individual schools and the leagues in which they play. But on April 7, the day final approval is expected for the landmark, $2.8 billion lawsuit settlement that lays the foundation for players to receive money directly from their schools, what was once considered anathema to the entire concept of college sports will become the norm. David Schnase, the NCAA’s vice president for academic and membership affairs, acknowledges that maintaining the unique essence of college sports is a challenge in the shifting landscape. “You can use the word ‘pro,’ you can use the word ‘amateur,’ you can attach whatever moniker you want to it, but those are just labels,” Schnase said. “It’s much less about labels and more about experiences and circumstances. Circumstances are different today than they were last year and they are likely going to be different in the foreseeable future.” Few would argue that college athletes shouldn’t get something back for the billions they help produce in TV and ticket revenue, merchandise sales and the like. But is everyone going to cash in? Are college players really getting rich? Recent headlines suggest top quarterback recruit Bryce Underwood was lured to Michigan thanks to funding from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and that a top basketball recruit, A.J. Dybantsa, is heading to BYU — not a hoops powerhouse — for the reported price of $7 million. For every Underwood or Dybantsa, though, there are even more Matthew Slukas and Beau Pribulas. Sluka’s agent says his son agreed to play quarterback at UNLV after a promise of receiving $100,000 and quit three games into the season after the checks never came. Pribula was the backup quarterback at Penn State who abruptly entered the transfer portal earlier this month, choosing the college version of free agency over a chance to play with the Nittany Lions in the College Football Playoff. He’s not the only one hitting the portal in hopes of getting rich before new regulations related to the NCAA settlement take effect. “We’ve got problems in college football,” Penn State coach James Franklin said. The settlement will overhaul the current system. Currently, players receive money via third-party collectives that are booster-funded groups affiliated with individual schools. Coming up fast: the schools paying the athletes directly — the term often used here is “revenue sharing” — with collectives still an option, but not the only one. “It’s going to be more transparent,” said Jeff Kessler, the plaintiffs’ attorney and antitrust veteran who helped shape the settlement. “If anything, having the schools handling all the payments is only going to improve the system.” The NCAA has started collecting data about NIL payments, which date to July 2021. Its first set of numbers, which includes data from more than 140 schools across more than 40 sports in 2024, show a bracing disconnect between have and have-nots. For instance, average earnings for football and men’s and women’s basketball players is nearly $38,000. But the median earning — the middle number among all the data points on the list — is only $1,328, a sign of how much the biggest contracts skew the average. The statistics also show a vast difference in earnings between men and women, an issue that could impact schools’ ability to comply with Title IX. That 1972 law requires schools to provide equal athletic scholarships and financial aid but not necessarily that they spend the same dollar amount on men and women. Heading into 2025, there is no clarity on how this issue will play out. Regardless, the numbers are jarring. The NCAA data set shows the average earnings for women in 16 sports was $8,624, compared with $33,321 for men in 11 sports. Men,’s basketball players averaged $56,000 compared with $11,500 for women. The biggest losers from this move toward a professional model could be all the swimmers and wrestlers and field hockey players — the athletes in the so-called non-revenue sports whose programs also happen to serve as the backbone of the U.S. Olympic team. Only a tiny percentage of those athletes are getting rich, and now that universities have to use revenue to pay the most sought-after players in their athletic programs, there could be cuts to the smaller sports. Also, someone’s going to have backfill the revenue that will now go to the players. Well-heeled donors like Ellison are not around for every school, nor have private equity firms started sending money. The average fan will have to pony up, and the last six months have seen dozens — if not hundreds — of athletic directors begging alumni for money and warning them of changes ahead. Already there are schools placing surcharges on tickets or concessions. How will fans respond to a more transactional model of college sports? “I don’t know that fans have this really great love for the idea of 100% pure amateurism,” said Nels Popp, a University of North Carolina sports business professor. “I think what they care about is the colors and the logos and the brand. I don’t know that it matters to them if the players are making a little bit of money or a lot of money. They’ve been making money for the last couple years, and I don’t know that that’s making fans really back off.” The last time amateurism came under such assault was in the 1980s, when the Olympics unwound the final remnants of pretending the vast majority of their athletes were anything other than full-time professionals. The transformation was tinged with a note of honesty: The people putting on the show should reap some benefits from it. Even 40 years later, there’s an good argument they remain underpaid. The contours of the same debate are shaping up in college sports. Athletes are pushing for a players’ association that would add more transparency to a business that, even with the changes coming, is still largely dictated by the schools. The NCAA, while acceding to the need to pay the players, wants nothing to do with turning them into actual employees of the schools they play for. It’s an expensive prospect that is winding its way through the legal system via lawsuits and labor hearings that many in college sports are desperate to avoid for fear it will push the entire industry off the financial cliff. Among the few things everyone agrees on is that things aren’t going back to a time when athletes pretended to play for pride while the money moved under tables and through shadows. And that this, in fact, could only be the start, not the end, of the transformation of college sports. “At some point, I think people might have to understand that maybe college athletes don’t go to college anymore,” Popp said. “Or maybe they don’t go to class during the season. There could be more radical changes, and as long as they’re wearing the right logo and the right colors, I’m not sure that fans really care.” Get local news delivered to your inbox!What Is the 'Sad Beige' Lawsuit? All About the First-Of-Its-Kind Case About Copying a Social Media Aesthetic
AP News Summary at 6:12 p.m. EST
InnovationRx: What We Know About UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Alleged Killer So FarNEW ORLEANS (AP) — A southeast Louisiana official has been accused of committing perjury for failing to disclose information related to a controversial grain terminal in the state's Mississippi River Chemical Corridor in response to a lawsuit brought by a prominent local climate activist. St. John the Baptist Parish President Jaclyn Hotard denied in a deposition that she knew her mother-in-law could have benefited financially from parish rezoning plans to make way for a 222-acre (90-hectare) grain export facility along the Mississippi River. Hotard also said in court filings, under oath, that no correspondence existed between her and her mother-in-law about the grain terminal, even though her mother-in-law later turned over numerous text messages where they discussed the grain terminal and a nearby property owned by the mother-in-law's marine transport company, court records show. The text messages were disclosed as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by Joy Banner, who along with her sister, Jo Banner, successfully led efforts to halt the $800 million grain terminal earlier this year. It would have been built within 300 feet (91 meters) of their property and close to historic sites in the predominantly Black community where they grew up. The legal dispute is part of a broader clash playing out in courts and public hearings , pitting officials eager to greenlight economic development against grassroots community groups challenging polluting industrial expansion in the heavily industrialized 85-mile industrial corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans often referred to by environmental activists as “Cancer Alley.” “We are residents that are just trying to protect our homes and just trying to live our lives as we have a right to do,” Banner said in an interview with The Associated Press. The Banner sisters gained national attention after cofounding the Descendants Project, an organization dedicated to historic preservation and racial justice. In the text messages turned over as part of Joy Banner's lawsuit, Hotard, the parish president, says that she wished to “choke” Joy Banner and used profanities to describe her. Hotard also said of the Banner sisters: “I hate these people.” Related: Hotard and her attorney, Ike Spears, did not respond to requests for comment after Tuesday's filing. Richard John Tomeny, the lawyer representing Hotard's mother-in-law, Darla Gaudet, declined to comment. Banner initially sued the parish in federal court in December 2023 after Hotard and another parish councilman, Michael Wright, threatened her with arrest and barred her from speaking during a public comment period at a November 2023 council meeting. “In sum: a white man threatened a Black woman with prosecution and imprisonment for speaking during the public comment period of a public meeting,” Banner's lawsuit says. It accuses the parish of violating Banner's First Amendment rights. Wright and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. Hotard and Wright have disputed Banner's version of events in court filings. At the November 2023 meeting, Banner attempted to highlight Hotard's alleged conflict of interest in approving a zoning change to enable the grain export facility's construction. Banner had also recently filed a complaint to the Louisiana Board of Ethics against Hotard pointing out that her mother-in-law allegedly would benefit financially because she owned and managed a marine transport company that had land “near and within” the area being rezoned. In response to a discovery request, Hotard submitted a court filing saying “no such documents exist” between her and her mother-in-law discussing the property, the grain terminal or Joy Banner, according to the recent motion filed by Banner's attorneys. Hotard also said in her August deposition that she had “no idea” about her mother-in-law's company's land despite text messages showing Hotard and her mother-in-law had discussed this property less than three weeks before Hotard's deposition. Banner's lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial early next year. ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Brook on the social platform X: @jack_brook96 Copyright 2024 The Associated Press . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
TORONTO — Canada's main stock index pushed higher to end Monday up almost 150 points on light trading action, while U.S. stock markets also gained ahead of the Christmas break. "Today is a quiet pre-Christmas Day of trading," said Kevin Burkett, a portfolio manager at Victoria, B.C.-based Burkett Asset Management. While markets in both Canada and the U.S. were mild, Burkett suggests watching the markets closely during the holiday season, a contrast to what's typically a sleepy period for markets. "We're continuing to watch markets very closely here because you've got some tectonic plate shifting in terms of the macroeconomic backdrop," he said. "It's all the political conversations both in Canada and in the U.S." Burkett added fiscal policy seems to be disconnected from monetary policy in the post-pandemic period. "The fiscal policy may shift and that shift absolutely has market implications both in the short and long term," he said. The S&P/TSX composite index was up 149.50 points at 24,748.98. Statistics Canada released its latest numbers on Canada's economic growth, up 0.3 per cent in October — driven by the mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction sector. The loonie continued its slide, trading for 69.47 cents US compared with 69.61 cents US on Friday. The telecom sector was the biggest loser at the closing on TSX, which Burkett attributed to "tax loss selling happening at the end of the year." Competition Bureau Canada announced on Monday it was suing Rogers Communications Inc. for allegedly making misleading claims about its infinite wireless plans. The stock price for Rogers, which is hovering near 52-week lows, fell 0.7 per cent on Monday. Meanwhile, BCE was down almost 1.4 per cent and Telus dropped 0.9 per cent. Burkett suggested the day's poor performance among telecom companies was likely tax loss selling since it's almost the end of the year. "It's been a tough year for the communication services sector," he said. South of the border, communications services was the top-performing sector, led by large-cap tech companies. Several big technology companies helped support the gains, including chip companies Nvidia and Broadcom. In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 66.69 points at 42,906.95. The S&P 500 index was up 43.22 points at 5,974.07, while the Nasdaq composite was up 192.29 points at 19,764.89. The February crude oil contract was down 22 cents at US$69.24 per barrel and the February natural gas contract was down six cents at US$3.35 per mmBTU. The February gold contract was down US$16.90 at US$2,628.20 an ounce and the March copper contract was down one cent at US$4.09 a pound. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 23, 2024. Companies in this story: (TSX: GSPTSE, TSX: CADUSD, TSE: BCE, TSE: RCI. B) Ritika Dubey, The Canadian Press
None
Coote was sacked earlier this month after the emergence of a video in which he made derogatory remarks about Liverpool and their former manager Jurgen Klopp. Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) said that a thorough investigation had concluded he was “in serious breach of the provisions of his employment contract, with his position deemed untenable”. “Supporting David Coote continues to be important to us and we remain committed to his welfare,” PGMOL’s statement on December 9 added. Coote had the right to appeal against the decision but PA understands the Nottinghamshire referee has decided not to. The video which triggered PGMOL’s investigation into Coote’s conduct first came to public attention on November 11. In it, Coote is asked for his views on a Liverpool match where he has just been fourth official, and describes them as “s***”. He then describes Klopp as a “c***”, and, asked why he felt that way, Coote says the German had “a right pop at me when I reffed them against Burnley in lockdown” and had accused him of lying. “I have got no interest in speaking to someone who’s f****** arrogant, so I do my best not to speak to him,” Coote said. Later in the video, Coote again refers to Klopp, this time as a “German c***”. The Football Association opened its own investigation into that video, understood to be centred on that last comment and whether Coote’s reference to Klopp’s nationality constituted an aggravated breach of its misconduct rules. The investigation by PGMOL which led to Coote’s contract being terminated is also understood to have looked at another video which appeared to show Coote snorting a white powder, purportedly during Euro 2024 where he was one of the assistant VARs for the tournament. European football’s governing body UEFA also appointed an ethics investigator to look into the matter.Labour’s plans to ban trail hunting ‘completely unjustified’
House approves $895B defense bill with military pay raise, ban on transgender care for minors
NoneWhat does Sean Manaea's reunion with the Mets mean for the player, team and rest of this offseason?