BROOKINGS — South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is fighting for a lawsuit against the NCAA to remain in state court, saying the nation’s largest athletic governing body’s bid to move the case to federal court has no standing.
In September, Jackley and the South Dakota Board of Regents filed suit against the NCAA at the Brookings County Courthouse, just two miles away from South Dakota State University’s athletic complex.
The complaint alleges that a proposed $2.8 billion settlement between the NCAA and the Power Four conferences — the Big 10, Big 12, ACC and SEC — unfairly forces smaller schools to be responsible for a disproportionate share of the settlement cost.
“The settlement is grossly unfair to non-Power 4 schools. Power 4 schools are responsible for 90% (if not 100%) of the damages covered by the settlement yet the NCAA is sticking non-Power 4 schools with 50% or more of the cost,” the complaint reads.
If the proposed settlement were to stand, South Dakota would have to pay an estimated $7 million over the settlement’s term, which the complaint says is “grossly disproportionate,” and would cause “undue financial hardship.”
In response to South Dakota’s court filing in Brookings County, the NCAA has worked to move the case to federal court, arguing that the lawsuit involves “significant federal issues” and should be heard by a federal judge.
In a response filed Tuesday, Oct. 15, Jackley said the case needs to stay in South Dakota’s circuit court.
“The NCAA is wrong,” his filing reads.
The five-page brief argues that the case does not meet the requirements for a lawsuit to be removed from state court because a federal court would not have had original jurisdiction to begin with, and that any question as to whether the case should be moved to a federal court favors it remaining at the state level.
Jackley alleges that because the lawsuit focuses on state law, and not federal law, the NCAA has no standing to move the case to a federal courtroom.
Further, Jackley denies that the case involves “significant federal issues,” as the NCAA claims.
When the settlement was made, a California court ruled that Houston Christian College — a non-Power 4 school which believes it will be similarly harmed by the settlement — could not intervene in the settlement discussion, because it had other means, such as a Texas court, to intervene.
Jackley cited that ruling, noting that South Dakota was “hours away” from intervening when the California court ruled Houston Christian could not, thus resulting in 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 require the interpretation or application of any federal law for their adjudication,” the brief reads. “The South Dakota complaint seeks only to compel the NCAA to perform its obligations to South Dakota (and similarly situated members).”
A hearing date has not yet been established for when a federal judge will decide whether the case should be heard in federal or state court.
What are state, university officials saying?
After the filing of the initial lawsuit in Brookings County, SDBOR President Tim Rave said the issue surrounding the proposed settlement is all about fairness.
“The South Dakota Board of Regents, the Attorney General's Office, and our universities are taking action to voice our concerns about the disproportionate allocation of our state's Division I athletic programs in the proposed NCAA settlement,” Rave said in a statement. “This settlement will significantly impact our two largest athletic programs, and we appreciate the support of the Attorney General’s office as we navigate this issue.”
Barry Dunn, president of South Dakota State University, said the state’s largest university is thankful for Jackley’s involvement.
“The settlement poses significant implications for our athletic programs without providing comprehensive benefits for our student-athletes. We appreciate the support from the Attorney General’s Office as we navigate this matter to seek fair outcomes for our state and universities,” he said.
Sheila Gestring, president of the University of South Dakota, said USD is focusing on equity.
“The University of South Dakota is grateful for the continued support of the Attorney General’s Office as we work through our concerns to guarantee equitable treatment for our state and universities. The proposed House vs. NCAA settlement will substantially impact our athletic program and our ability to support our student-athletes,” she said.
The Trust Project
