Dave Taylor

What’s worse? Going to law school to defend insurance companies or going to law school to be a lawyer for the NCAA? I did insurance defense work my first year out of law school. It was miserable. Still probably more rewarding than being on the NCAA’s payroll.

Plaintiff attorneys receive a 0.75% cut of annual rev-share spend. That’s $13-15 million this year, which goes to escrow until the appeal. Attorneys also get 18% of $2.77B in back-damages to athletes (~$500M) and $20M up-front. Total over 10 years should eclipse $700M.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), one of the critics of the Protect College Sports Act, is speaking on the Senate floor. "We are taking a system that the Supreme Court said could not persist under our law, and we are changing the law to allow that illegal system to persist."

Jeff Goodman’s tweets from yesterday questioning the contingency fee arrangement in our representation of college basketball players seeking a 5th year of eligibility reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how these matters are litigated and funded. I finally have a small break in the action, so let's talk about it. We are representing players from the high school class of 2022 who exhausted their eligibility under the prior rules. The NCAA’s new age-based model permits 5 years of competition but arbitrarily excludes this class, even as these athletes competed against peers who received extra eligibility through prior waivers. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in state courts, and early injunctive relief has already been obtained for some plaintiffs. These cases proceed on a contingency fee basis. Our firm and co-counsel receive nothing if the athletes do not prevail. We advance litigation costs. The risk allocation is the core of contingency representation. It is the reason such arrangements exist and why they are common in plaintiff-side work against well-resourced institutions (the NCAA spent $63.5 million in legal fees during the fiscal year ending Aug 2025, as recently reported by @DanielLibit). The athletes we represent generally lack the resources to retain counsel on an hourly basis while pursuing one additional season of competition and the associated NIL opportunities. The fee is 15% of any recovery obtained. Where a player’s NIL earnings exceed a defined threshold as a result of the additional eligibility, the percentage charged decreases below 15%. This structure was presented to the athletes and their families in plain terms. They reviewed it, asked questions, and agreed to the engagement. There has been no pushback. The arrangement was designed to align incentives and ensure that those who benefit most from a successful outcome still retain the overwhelming majority of the value. In the legal profession, contingency fees in complex plaintiff litigation routinely begin at 30% or more, particularly where counsel bears the full financial risk and must front substantial expenses over an extended period. 15% or less is modest by any professional standard, as anyone who is a lawyer or has ever hired a lawyer on a contingency basis knows well. The suggestion that it is high for this work ignores both prevailing practice and the specific economics here. Many of these players will generate only modest additional NIL income even with a successful outcome. The fee must be evaluated against that reality and not in the abstract. Goodman's criticism and his retweet of an ambulance intended to imply that I am an ambulance chaser overlooked the practical alternative. Without counsel willing to accept these cases on accessible terms, the claims would not be brought. The athletes would have no meaningful recourse against the NCAA’s exclusion, and the inconsistency in the eligibility rules would stand. Zealous representation on contingency is what makes the legal process available to young athletes (I won't refer to them as "kids" as Goodman does) who would otherwise be priced out of challenging arbitrary administrative decisions that directly affect their careers and earning potential. I have spent my career, and long before July 1, 2021, advocating for athlete rights through legislation, direct representation, and public commentary. This work is a continuation of that effort. The goal is to secure for these players the opportunities the new policy was meant to create but from which they were unfairly carved out. The early court rulings demonstrate that the claims have merit and that litigation is an effective path to relief. Public commentary that questions reasonable, client-approved fee structures without full context does little to advance the interests of the athletes themselves, but may drive engagement for short-sighted commentators. TLDR: My focus remains squarely on my clients and on vindicating their rights under the rules as they now exist. We will continue to structure engagements in ways that remove financial barriers to representation while maintaining the highest standards of professional responsibility. The athletes deserve nothing less.

The SEC and Big Ten are socializing with their members and Congressional staff a list of 10 legislative recommendations to the Protect College Sports Act. Many are intended to strengthen the antitrust protection to prevent more lawsuits and “provide long-term stability.”

The leagues want the legislation to apply immediately to existing lawsuits, such as pending eligibility cases. And they want changed - as has been noted - the anti-expansion provision to eliminate the possibility of a third party poaching members to create a super league.

One of the recommendations, titled “Make NIL Transparent,” suggests a database that houses all school athlete compensation spending. The data would be accessible to “sharing from institutions to institutions.” “You cannot enforce rules if nobody knows what is happening.”

This ruling is truly outrageous and threatens the integrity of all sports. It’s now, more than ever, abundantly clear Congress needs to act to give @NCAA and universities the ability to govern themselves.

"But we are trying to strike that balance in the legislation where you would, in a different setting, you would have some sort of negotiation between a union and the professional sports team. this just isn't that kind of scenario right?" Why, in a different setting, would you have management and labor negotiate, but not here? Why isn't "that kind of scenario" appropriate here?

No disrespect to Holtzclaw, as I'm sure he's a wonderful person and comes across very professionally, but he is adding no real perspective to this conversation, and everyone else on the panel is a pawn.

Protect College Sports Act of 2026 The Good: Schools covering out-of-pocket medical expenses for sport-related injuries and post-eligibility medical expenses, catastrophic injury coverage beyond $90k, and independent 2nd opinions at no cost. The Bad: Almost everything else.

The Senate Commerce Committee says it will release the Protect College Sports Act, sponsored by Sens. Cruz and Cantwell. It includes an antitrust exemption, a one-time transfer without sitting out, implementing a hard cap, restricting athlete eligibility, and creating a "national rule book." It's giving the NCAA everything it wants, but for affirmatively stating that college athletes aren't employees. The Senate Commerce Committee is hopeful to host a hearing on the bill in the coming weeks. Cantwell sold out athletes by signing onto this. If it passes, it will be up to the courts to blow this up, primarily by classifying college athletes as employees.

I haven’t filed any (yet). I represent college athletes to negotiate their rev share agreements and NIL agreements. I also represent some NIL collectives. And I provide NIL guidance to some schools.

A victory for college athletes.

If you’re a basketball player who played 4 seasons in 4 years and you’re being excluded from playing a 5th season, then feel free to reach out, even if you have already. Starting to mobilize. Likely won’t be a class action suit, though. darren@heitnerlegal.com.

The amount of people who claim to be free market advocates and who would never stand for someone price fixing their pay, yet think it’s ok to price fix college athlete pay, is mind boggling. Cognitive dissonance.

New NCAA proposal on eligibility reminds me of that iconic movie line in “Sweet Home Alabama”: What is it about [the NCAA]? You can’t make the right decision 'til you made all the wrong ones."