World
Kessler Says DOJ Critiques of House Settlement Are Off Base
The Justice Department’s statement of interest criticizing the NCAA’s preliminarily approved settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations is off the mark, attorney Jeffrey Kessler told Sportico in a phone interview on Saturday.
The DOJ’s court filing was made in a California federal district court late Friday. Among other critiques, the DOJ objects to colleges paying athletes 22% of a defined formula for averaged shared revenue. The DOJ finds this arrangement inadequate because the “cap” has not been collectively bargained with a union (there is no union for college athletes since they are not employees and unions consist only of employees).
The cap, the DOJ highlights, means D-1 schools won’t be able to compete for college athletes by offering them “additional value beyond that limit for use of their [NIL].” The DOJ finds it problematic that an NCAA member school “is not permitted to spend what it wants … to compete for the services of college athletes.” While the new amount (around $21 million a year for a school’s athletes) is dramatically greater than the old amount ($0), it is “still fixed by agreement” among competing businesses. Price fixing by competitors is generally disfavored under antitrust law.
The DOJ is also worried that the NCAA and power conferences can use the settlement, which is set to last 10 years, as a defense in future antitrust cases. As the DOJ sees it, the NCAA might “attempt to use a private, negotiated settlement as a shield in future litigation.” To corroborate that concern, the DOJ references an email from NCAA and power conferences attorney Rakesh Kilaru sent to DOJ attorneys in which Kilaru noted his clients “retain all rights” to rely on the settlement.
Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn and a lead attorney in several historic sports litigations, stressed the settlement, if granted final approval by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken following a hearing on April 7, will lead to college players being paid “billions of dollars.” He also underscored the settlement will change longstanding NCAA rules that have denied players any compensation.
A settlement is also just that—a settlement—meaning it reflects the give-and-take of a deal. Both sides, including the NCAA, need to find the prospect of settling better than continuing to litigate. The players and the NCAA (and power conferences) could have kept litigating and rolled the dice. They would have also had to accept spending many years in court since federal appeals in antitrust cases can last a long time. They instead opted to cut a deal. Wilken is not charged with determining if the settlement is ideal or optimal for the players. She must assess if it satisfies a lower bar: The settlement must be fair, reasonable and adequate for class members and adequately resolve the alleged antitrust problems.
As to the possibility of the settlement being used as a defense, Kessler emphasized “there is no release of antitrust claims,” either by the Justice Department—which is not a party to the litigation—or future players.
If elite athletes who are currently 12 years old wish to challenge NCAA rules on antitrust grounds in five years, the athletes can do so. The settlement doesn’t release future claims. The two sides expect the 12-year-olds won’t bring a lawsuit and will instead accept the compensation figures that have been set in the House settlement, but if the 12-year-olds want to sue, they can.
The NCAA can use the settlement as a legal defense, but a defense is only as persuasive as found by a court. A defense is not an antitrust immunity or exemption. It’s also not as if the House settlement has dissuaded the filing of antitrust lawsuits. Since Wilken granted preliminary approval last October, Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavia has challenged NCAA eligibility restrictions on JUCO transfers on antitrust grounds and Southern Mississippi basketball player John Wade III has challenged the NCAA’s five-year eligibility period on antitrust grounds.
The timing of the DOJ’s filing is important for at least a few reasons.
First, the filing was made with less than three days to go before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. Trump, his nominee for U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, and incoming attorneys for the DOJ’s antitrust division might not agree with the DOJ’s position as expressed in Friday’s statement and could withdraw or amend the statement.
Trump’s DOJ, including its antitrust division, will also take months to fill out. The U.S. Senate must confirm Trump’s nominee for the assistant AG of the antitrust division (Gail Slater) and positions in that department will gradually be filled. Time is of the essence: Wilken is set to decide on final approval after a hearing 11 weeks from now. Trump’s DOJ might not be ready to express a viewpoint by then. This could create an uncertain landscape for Wilken to know the DOJ’s position, which could make the DOJ’s filing on Friday seem less authoritative.
Second, the timing of the DOJ’s statement could deflate its legal arguments. The DOJ could have raised these same points last year, including before Wilken granted preliminary approval in October, but waited until the final hours of the Biden administration. Those points were also already raised by seven former and current D-I athletes in their court filing last October, which might have been a better time for the DOJ to weigh in. Rushing to file the statement before Trump takes office could be interpreted as the DOJ, under the leadership of President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, believing Trump and Bondi hold different views.
Lastly, it’s telling that while the DOJ opines the House settlement doesn’t do enough for college athletes because of underlying antitrust concerns, the DOJ hasn’t sued the NCAA over those concerns. The DOJ, while under the leadership of Democratic and Republican presidents, could have challenged these rules at various points over the last 70 years. In fairness to the current DOJ, it did join a lawsuit (Ohio v. NCAA) last year over NCAA transfer rules. And in 1998, the DOJ sued the NCAA under the Americans with Disabilities Act over treatment of college athletes with learning disabilities. But the DOJ could have, and didn’t, challenge numerous other NCAA rules in recent decades as the same college athletes at “big time” programs generated massive revenues for their schools and weren’t paid.
World
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz over ceasefire violations
World
Keir Starmer reportedly considering stepping down as PM and could announce timetable for departure
British PM Keir Starmer could face leadership challenge amid internal troubles
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces significant internal pressure following Andy Burnham’s special election win, potentially triggering a leadership contest. Starmer is under fire for economic pressures, illegal immigration issues, and controversies surrounding his previous role in prosecuting grooming gangs. Elon Musk also accused Starmer of complicity.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is reportedly considering stepping down and could announce a timetable for his departure as early as Monday, according to a report published Saturday.
Britain’s Observer newspaper reported that Starmer was discussing his future with his wife at his Chequers country residence before making a final decision.
The outlet reported that senior Labour Party figures expect a statement addressing his future as early as next week.
A government source told Reuters that Starmer remains focused on governing and pointed to previous comments in which he vowed to remain in office.
AS EPSTEIN-LINKED APPOINTMENT SPARKS BACKLASH, UK PM STARMER FACES PARTY REVOLT AMID RESIGNATION CALLS
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer awaits Switzerland’s Federal President Guy Parmelin on the sidelines of the G7 summit, in Evian-les-Bains, France, Tuesday. (Isabel Infantes/Pool Reuters via AP)
Fox News Digital has reached out to the prime minister’s office for comment.
Pressure on Starmer has been building for months amid growing dissatisfaction within his party and concerns over the government’s handling of the economy and cost-of-living issues.
The political threat to Starmer intensified Friday after rival Andy Burnham won a seat in Parliament, positioning him to mount a formal leadership challenge.
LABOUR MP PUTS CABINET ‘ON NOTICE,’ THREATENS TO TRIGGER LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE AGAINST STARMER BY MONDAY
Britain’s Labour party candidate Andy Burnham speaks to supporters after the Makerfield by-election in Ashton in Makerfield, England, Friday. (Jon Super/AP)
Starmer congratulated Burnham following the victory, writing on X that voters, “chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”
When asked about Burnham’s apparent ambitions to replace him, Starmer insisted he intends to remain in office.
“I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that,” Starmer said.
UK’S STARMER JUGGLES TROUBLE AT HOME AS HE WALKS GEOPOLITICAL TIGHTROPE WITH TRUMP
Sir Keir Starmer is battling to save his position and refusing to stand aside despite dozens of Labout MP’s demanding he resigns. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)
Starmer has led the Labour Party since 2020 and became prime minister in 2024.
Calls for his resignation intensified last month, with more than 100 Labour lawmakers publicly urging him to step aside or set out a timetable for his departure. Several parliamentary aides also resigned in protest.
The internal revolt followed a series of disappointing local election results for Labour, which lost hundreds of council seats across England, surrendered long-held ground in Wales and fell behind political rivals in Scotland.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks a news conference at Downing Street in London, March 5. (Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Starmer’s popularity has also declined amid a persistently high cost of living, sluggish economic growth and criticism over his acceptance of gifts from wealthy donors.
Fox News Digital’s James Cirrone and Emma Bussey, and Reuters contributed to this report.
World
Trump vows Iran will not charge Strait of Hormuz tolls, but says US might
United States President Donald Trump has pledged there will be no tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, unless they are collected by his own country.
Trump’s statement, made in a Saturday afternoon post on Truth Social, is the latest sign that a recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) may be unravelling.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired,” Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America.”
Since the US and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, Iran has successfully used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point, closing the strategic waterway to traffic.
But under the terms of Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum, the strait is supposed to reopen for an interim period of 60 days. During that time, Iran is barred from charging vessels for passage.
On Saturday, however, Iran’s joint military command said it had closed the Strait of Hormuz, citing a “clear breach” of the memorandum’s commitments.
US Central Command (CENTCOM), the agency that oversees military operations in the region, denied that report and maintained that the traffic continues to flow through the waterway.
The Strait of Hormuz has long been a flashpoint in the conflict between the US and Iran. Nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is transported through the strait, as well as about 30 percent of the global fertiliser trade.
Closure of the strait has caused global fuel costs to soar and has tested agricultural sectors across the world.
Trump had responded to Iran’s chokehold over the strait by imposing a US naval blockade on Iran’s ports in the region.
But that naval blockade was lifted under the terms of Wednesday’s memorandum. The deal also paused fighting on all fronts in the regional conflict, including in Lebanon.
The memorandum, though, was not intended as a long-term deal. It serves as a launching point for negotiations on key issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Several points of divergence also went unaddressed in the memorandum. Nowhere does the memo say that future tolls cannot be collected from the strait after the 60-day period expires.
Before the war, there was no charge for passage through the strait. Trump himself said in an interview with The New York Times that the waterway should remain “permanently toll-free”.
But he appeared to reverse course in Saturday’s post, once again floating the possibility that the US could extract tolls in the strait, while barring Iran from doing so.
No fees should be levied, Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed”.
He explained that such a charge would compensate the US “for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs”.
Trump used similar language in his New York Times interview earlier this week, floating the US becoming “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for 20 percent of its revenue.
Saturday’s post is not the first time Trump has mused about the US imposing tolls in the strait, either.
In April, for instance, he discussed the idea with reporters, saying, “What about us charging tolls? I’d rather do that than let them have them. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won.”
There has been no indication that Trump’s plans have been officially presented to countries in the region, many of whom have struck a careful balance in their dealings with both the US and Iran during the war.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, have repeatedly said they will not rule out imposing tolls in the strait, framing the issue as a matter of sovereignty and regional negotiation. The strait sits between Iran and Oman.
Further discussions are expected on the matter in the coming weeks.
But such negotiations have been thrown into jeopardy amid ongoing Israeli military operations in Lebanon, which threaten to violate Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum.
Iran claimed that Saturday’s closure of the strait was a result of new Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon, which killed dozens of people after the ceasefire was announced.
Iranian officials have also said that any upcoming talks should focus on proper implementation of the initial memorandum, and that the 60-day negotiating period stipulated in Wednesday’s deal would begin after that was settled.
Pakistan, a top mediator between the US and Iran, has said that follow-up talks are set to begin in Switzerland on Sunday.
Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that an Iranian delegation, led by parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has already arrived for the negotiations.
On the US side, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance are expected to attend.
Vance departed for Switzerland late Saturday.
-
San Francisco, CA7 minutes agoSan Francisco celebrates Black freedom at weekend Juneteenth parade: ‘We’re all people’
-
Dallas, TX10 minutes agoRedesign debate intensifies as Dallas convention center faces costly delays
-
Miami, FL16 minutes ago‘An insane memory’: New World Cup super hero plays in Miami but not with Messi
-
Boston, MA23 minutes agoFAA investigates close call between two aircraft at intersecting runways at Boston Logan International Airport | CNN
-
Denver, CO25 minutes agoProposed September 2026 Service Changes
-
Seattle, WA31 minutes agoSeattle gets a heat wave and rain storm in the same week? – Emerald City Weather Blog
-
San Diego, CA38 minutes agoPhotos: Cooper Family Foundation’s Juneteenth celebration
-
Milwaukee, WI40 minutes agoCarin León, Summerfest’s first regional Mexican music act, draws new visitors to Milwaukee