Bold Insights On Jackley’s SDSU, USD’s Lawsuit Against NCAA And Proposed $2.8 Billion Settlement

Jackley said the NCAA’s attempt to move South Dakota’s lawsuit to federal court “doesn’t come within a country mile” of the standards to elevate such a case.

BROOKINGS — South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is advocating for a lawsuit against the NCAA to stay in state court, asserting that the NCAA’s attempt to move the case to federal court lacks merit.

In September, Jackley and the South Dakota Board of Regents filed the lawsuit at the Brookings County Courthouse, located just two miles from the athletic complex of South Dakota State University.

The complaint claims that a proposed $ 2.8 billion settlement between the NCAA and the Power Four conferences—the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC—unfairly burdens smaller schools with a disproportionate share of the settlement costs.

“The settlement is extremely unfair to non-Power 4 schools. While Power 4 schools account for 90% (if not 100%) of the damages covered by the settlement, non-Power 4 schools are being saddled with 50% or more of the expense,” the complaint states.

If the proposed settlement goes through, South Dakota would need to pay about $ 7 million over the course of the settlement, which the complaint describes as “grossly disproportionate” and likely to impose “undue financial hardship.”

In response to South Dakota’s court filing in Brookings County, the NCAA is seeking to transfer the case to federal court, arguing that it raises “significant federal issues” that warrant a hearing by a federal judge.

In a response submitted on October 15, Attorney General Jackley stated that the case should remain in South Dakota’s circuit court.

“The NCAA is mistaken,” his filing states.

The five-page brief contends that the case does not qualify for removal from state court since a federal court would not have had original jurisdiction over the matter, suggesting that any decision regarding the case’s venue should favor keeping it at the state level.

Jackley asserts that the lawsuit is centered on state law rather than federal law, and therefore the NCAA lacks the grounds to seek a federal hearing.

Additionally, Jackley refutes the NCAA’s claim that the case involves “significant federal issues.”

When the settlement was reached, a California court decided that Houston Christian College—a non-Power 4 institution that believes it will be adversely affected by the settlement—could not participate in the discussions because it had alternative options, such as a Texas court, for intervention.

Jackley referenced this ruling, pointing out that South Dakota was “hours away” from stepping in when the California court determined that Houston Christian could not, which led to the state court lawsuit.

“On its face, South Dakota’s complaint raises purely state law causes of action which do not ‘affirmatively allege a federal claim’ or necessitate the interpretation or application of any federal law for their resolution,” the brief states. “The South Dakota complaint seeks solely to compel the NCAA to fulfill its obligations to South Dakota (and similar institutions).”

A hearing date has not yet been set for when a federal judge will decide whether the case will be heard in federal or state court.

What are state and university officials saying?
Following the filing of the initial lawsuit in Brookings County, SDBOR President Tim Rave emphasized that the issue surrounding the proposed settlement is centered on fairness.

“The South Dakota Board of Regents, the Attorney General’s Office, and our universities are taking action to express our concerns about the unequal distribution of resources for our state’s Division I athletic programs in the proposed NCAA settlement,” Rave stated. “This settlement will have a significant impact on our two largest athletic programs, and we appreciate the Attorney General’s office support as we address this matter.”

Barry Dunn, president of South Dakota State University, expressed gratitude for Jackley’s involvement, noting that the settlement could greatly affect the state’s largest university’s athletic programs without delivering adequate benefits to student-athletes.

“The settlement has serious implications for our athletic programs without offering comprehensive benefits for our student-athletes. We appreciate the support from the Attorney General’s Office as we work towards fair outcomes for our state and universities,” he said.

Sheila Gestring, president of the University of South Dakota, emphasized that USD is prioritizing equity.

“We appreciate the ongoing support from the Attorney General’s Office as we address our concerns regarding fair treatment for our state and universities. The proposed settlement in House vs. NCAA will have a significant effect on our athletic program and our capacity to support our student-athletes,” she stated.