This is from an On3 email newsletter that I get: =============================== It's impossible to overstate how radically the outcome of the blockbuster House v. NCAA antitrust case could reshape the entire college athletics enterprise. Friday night's ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to grant class-action status for the remaining three damages classes ups the ante exponentially. The NCAA and power conferences could be ordered to pay some $4.2 billion in damages to former and current athletes. "A loss would financially cripple the NCAA and eliminate any rule-making authority it still has on athlete compensation," Mit Winter, a college sports attorney for Kennyhertz Perry, said. "This is why the NCAA has been pushing [Congress] hard for an antitrust exemption." Damages are now in play for thousands of athletes, not merely the three plaintiffs: former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver and TCU basketball player Sedona Prince. Both sides in the case have engaged in settlement talks – and Wilken's Friday night bombshell likely will increase the urgency for the NCAA to try to settle. But, at this point, what is the plaintiffs' motivation to settle? For perspective, the 2020 Covid-driven cancellation of the NCAA tournament devastated college sports financially. The loss of more than $600 million in revenue prompted one high-ranking college sports official to tell me, "We literally cannot afford to go through anything like that again. It can't happen." Now $4.2 billion could be at stake. Wilken's ruling carries enormous implications but was not unexpected. She is the same judge who ruled against the NCAA in O'Bannon and Alston at the trial court level. Clearly, she is not averse to ruling that NCAA compensation rules violate antitrust law. Thousands of athletes could possibly receive NIL backpay as well as a slice of TV broadcast revenue, something most college leaders have aggressively tried to prevent as the value of TV rights contracts has grown considerably. And NIL rule changes could take hold that would permit schools and conferences to pay NIL dollars to athletes for any reason, including athletic performance. Wilken wrote in her ruling that she found "ample support for [the] plaintiffs' assumption that student-athletes NIL in broadcasts have value, and that their value is at least ten percent of the revenues of defendants' broadcasting contracts." "This is the case that could end the NCAA — or at least the NCAA in its current form," Winter said. "I'd look for some schools to now more seriously consider leaving the NCAA to be part of creating a new organization that operates under a model that complies with antitrust and employment/labor law." – Eric Prisbell