Tesla Increases Model S and Model X Prices Amid Slumping Sales

A federal judge on Thursday probed the terms of a proposed $2.78 billion settlement of antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and major conferences and revealed a potential snag in the deal, questioning whether payments to college athletes from booster-funded organizations should be restricted.

“I’m quite concerned about those,” U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said during a preliminary approval hearing. The hearing was the first step of a lengthy court process that could lead to college athletes getting a cut of the billions in television revenue that flows to their schools.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs, the NCAA and parties challenging the settlement appeared via video conference in front of Wilken, who was presiding from the court in Oakland, California.

The NCAA and the power conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and Pac-12) agreed in May to settle House v. NCAA and two similar case cases that challenged compensation rules for college athletes.

The deal calls for the NCAA to foot the bill for nearly $3 billion in damages paid to former and current college athletes who were denied the right to earn money off their name, image and likeness, dating to 2016.

As part of the settlement, the conferences agreed to a revenue-sharing plan that would allow each school to direct about $21 million annually to athletes for use of their names, images and likenesses, starting as soon as next season — if the settlement receives final approval.

No ruling

Wilken did not rule on the request to grant preliminary approval of the deal. She told the NCAA and plaintiffs to “go back to the drawing board” to address issues she raised and report back to her in three weeks with solutions. An exact date for another hearing and for her to make a ruling was not set.

The settlement also takes aim at reining in so-called NIL collectives that have sprung up around major college sports, paying millions to athletes, since the NCAA lifted its ban on athletes being paid for sponsorship and endorsement deals in 2021.

The settlement allows for enforcement of current NCAA rules banning third-party, pay-for-play to athletes and payments being used as recruiting inducements. Under the terms of the deal, outside arbitrators would determine if rules were violated instead of the NCAA.

“Our position is that pay-for-play is prohibited,” NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru said.

“Well, but in this House settlement, if it is approved, you will be explicitly paying for play or allowing schools to pay for play. So that no pay-for-play thing is kind of not going to be there anymore, is it?” Wilken said.

Kilaru responded: “There’s still going to be a prohibition on pay-for-play, and there’s discretion for schools to make payments as they see fit under the new regime.”

“And that won’t be pay-for-play?” Wilken said, incredulously.

NCAA rules do define who is a booster and try to distinguish real business deals from NIL payments that are just a stand in for a salary. Wilken questioned whether it was possible to draw those distinctions while not denying athletes the ability to cash in on their fame.

“Is having your team win a valid business purpose?” she asked.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler said they did not expect third-party payments from NIL collectives to decrease because of the settlement.

“If anything, we think they are going to increase,” he said.

Kilaru insisted the ability to regulate boosters and collectives was essential to the settlement.

“Based on your comments today, we have to talk about whether we have a deal,” he told Wilken.

Challenges

Wilken raised other questions regarding notification to the former and current college athletes who can claim damages and who would represent athletes who want to challenge terms of the settlement.

She mostly dismissed lawyers challenging the settlement on the basis that it did not provide enough damages.

“Everybody thinks they can get a better deal,” she said.

She also seemed unswayed by objections raised by a group of female former Division I athletes who claim they won’t receive a fair amount of the damages, which will mostly go to football and men’s basketball players.

Wilken said that was a sexual discrimination issue covered by Title IX, but not applicable to an antitrust case.

Timetable

Preliminary approval from the judge allows the plaintiffs as soon as two weeks later to begin notifying thousands of former and current college athletes that they are eligible to claim damages or object to the terms.

The NCAA and college sports leaders are already working on how to implement the revenue-sharing plan — including bringing in a third-party to manage enforcement of some terms. Preliminary approval creates a modicum of certainty, but the work of implementation will still have to be done while waiting on Wilken.

The NCAA announced Thursday as the hearing was going on that the Division I Council had discussed making changes to eligibility rules, expanding athletes’ access to agents and no longer having athletes sign a National Letter of Intent when they officially to commit to a school.

The NCAA said in a statement that it and the conferences “will carefully consider the court’s questions, which are not uncommon in the context of class-action settlements.”

The soonest Wilken could grant final approval is 150 days after notices go out to members of the damages class. But now it’ll be at least another three weeks before preliminary approval happens.

“It’s seems to me likely enough that there will be a settlement, even if there’s some changes to what’s been agreed to so far,” Wilken said.

___

Follow Ralph D. Russo at https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP

___

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: and

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — A former Taiwanese presidential candidate who was once mayor of the capital Taipei has been returned to custody as part of a sprawling corruption investigation.

Ko Wen-je was returned to detention Thursday night in handcuffs after a legal panel overruled an earlier order allowing him to return home. sure. He is being held incommunicado, unable to speak to anyone outside the facility in which he is being held.

Ko’s case involves alleged illegal favors and payments from a web of business people and local level politicians brought to light by an urban redevelopment project that stood to bring investors massive profits by avoiding required reviews. He has the option of further appealing on Friday.

Despite intense media attention, the case appears to be having little effect on Taiwan’s robust democracy and independent legal system. Ko heads the Taiwan People’s Party and drew support in this year’s elections from young Taiwanese looking for an alternative to the two party system that has governed Taiwanese politics for the last two decades.

Taiwan has been dominated by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and the remainder of the Nationalist Party that fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party’s takeover of mainland China in 1949.

Ko and others were named in May in a scandal in which the developer of the downtown Core Pacific Center shopping center was given permission to massively expand the floor space available for lease during Ko’s 2014-2022 term as mayor. Ko has said he had no knowledge or involvement in the case, despite evidence suggesting he was aware and also participated in other questionable financial arrangements. He can be held for up to four months while the investigation continues.

The Taipei District Court ruled that his continued detention was necessary because of the amount of funds involved, the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the likelihood of him working in cooperation with others involved to hide evidence and manufacture testimony.

Ko finished third with about a quarter of the vote in this year’s election, which was won by the DPP’s William Lai Ching-te, whose party favors continued de-facto independence from China. The TPP won just under 3% of the seats in the legislature.

Ko did particularly well among young people despite having no clear political platform. He was unable to agree to an alliance with either the DPP or the Nationalists, leaving him with few political allies outside his own supporters, a few hundred of whom have rallied outside Taipei’s courthouse.

Despite unsupported accusations of judicial persecution against the government, President Lai has not commented directly on Ko’s case.

Once a major scourge on Taiwan’s democracy, political corruption has declined as a top concern amid a strengthening of the power of independent investigators.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

SYDNEY (AP) — Swimming Australia has fired coach Michael Palfrey over comments made at the Paris Olympics where he said he hoped a South Korean athlete would beat Australian swimmers.

Palfrey told South Korean television he hoped South Korea’s Kim Woo-min would win the men’s 400-meter freestyle in Paris, an event that featured Australians Sam Short and Elijah Winnington.

“I really hope he can win, but ultimately I really hope he swims well,” Palfrey said in Paris during the Games. He added, “Go Korea.”

Swimming Australia said in a statement Friday that it had terminated Palfrey “due to a breach of his employment agreement.”

It added Palfrey brought “himself into disrepute and causing serious damage to his and Swimming Australia’s reputation, and adversely affecting Swimming Australia’s interests.”

The statement said Palfrey would retain his coach accreditation status.

Palfrey, who previously worked with Kim as an adviser, was told along with Australia’s other swimming coaches to end any association with non-Australian swimmers in March, four months prior to the Olympic Games.

Germany’s Lukas Märtens won the gold medal in the men’s 400-meter freestyle, with Winnington claiming silver ahead of Kim, who won bronze.

Australia head swim coach Rohan Taylor had called the comments by Palfrey “un-Australian” and said he might be sent home, but he was eventually allowed to remain in Paris.

“Very disappointed. Extremely disappointed,” Taylor said at the time. “For a coach on our team to promote another athlete ahead of our athletes is not acceptable.”

___

AP Paris Olympics:

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.