Speaker 1: Now, let's get to the latest on Sean Diddy Combs,
Speaker 1: whose federal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges is
Speaker 1: set to begin next month.
Speaker 2: Sources tell People Magazine.
Speaker 1: That Cassandra Cassie Ventura is prepared to testify against her
Speaker 1: ex partner did He at the upcoming trial using her name.
Speaker 2: Last Friday, prosecutors follow the.
Speaker 1: Motion stating that quote Victim number one would not be
Speaker 1: testifying anonymously during Comb's upcoming trial, where he faces charges
Speaker 1: of racketeering and conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage
Speaker 1: in prostitution. People Magazine exclusively confirmed with sources that Ventura
Speaker 1: is victim number one or Victim one, and.
Speaker 2: That she will be testifying in the trial.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, three other victims are preparing to testify anonymously against
Speaker 1: the disgraced musician. Listen, in recent news, we've seen a
Speaker 1: lot of things come to the fold. We've seen charges
Speaker 1: and dropped by other folks, uh, things going away, But
Speaker 1: this hasn't.
Speaker 2: And to me, this is why this is.
Speaker 1: So incredibly damaging for Diddy because the one person that
Speaker 1: visually incriminates him more than anything else, it's Cassie Ventura.
Speaker 2: His ex girlfriend. She is the person he was.
Speaker 1: Seen in that video that he ran down the hallway
Speaker 1: half naked, grabbed her, yanked her, threw her to the floor,
Speaker 1: kicked her, you know, through a vase.
Speaker 3: That are.
Speaker 1: The behavior was despicable and it's incredibly incriminating to me.
Speaker 1: If you're the prosecution and you can use that video
Speaker 1: to smear P Diddy, that's bad. That's very very bad.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I understand that some people will set up there say
Speaker 1: racketeering and all of this other stuff that, you know,
Speaker 1: the charges that have been leveled against him. This may
Speaker 1: how much this may have to do with that remains
Speaker 1: to be seen. But these are twelve as we're talking
Speaker 1: about jurors of your peers, and if you have an
Speaker 1: opportunity to visualize a heinous act on the part of
Speaker 1: the defendant, then that's not going to garner sympathy.
Speaker 2: It's not going to garner neutrality.
Speaker 1: It's not going to garner the kind of emotion that
Speaker 1: one would surmise you would need from a jury in
Speaker 1: order for you to win your case and ultimately get
Speaker 1: off with a not guilty verdicant able to go home.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's possible.
Speaker 1: Once you see that video of him putting his hands
Speaker 1: on Cassie Ventura, and for her to be the one
Speaker 1: to testify, and for her to be the one testifying
Speaker 1: on behalf of the prosecution, considering the fact that she
Speaker 1: was his lady, considering the fact that purportedly reportedly she
Speaker 1: engaged in activities she otherwise would not have wanted to
Speaker 1: at the behest of him. When you consider some of
Speaker 1: the things that they're saying about him, and the fact
Speaker 1: that your ex girl, with all the evidence in the
Speaker 1: world to come at you, one would smise, is willing
Speaker 1: to do so for the prosecution.
Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen. That's not good.
Speaker 1: That's very very bad. That's very bad. I mean, I
Speaker 1: just don't know what to say about it. I really
Speaker 1: really don't, because again, I'm not trying to convict the
Speaker 1: brother in the court of public opinion, nor am I
Speaker 1: trying to let him off.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to let the facts bear themselves out.
Speaker 1: But with the litany of charges and allegations that the
Speaker 1: Throne in his direction, I can't imagine anything more incriminating
Speaker 1: than her. She's the last person that I would have
Speaker 1: expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I thought somehow,
Speaker 1: some way Diddy and his defense team would have prevented
Speaker 1: that part from happening. That's not going to happen. And whatever,
Speaker 1: think about it, whatever they ask, you're just ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 2: Just paused for a second.
Speaker 1: Just close your eyes for a second and just imagine
Speaker 1: that when your eyes were open just a few seconds earlier,
Speaker 1: you saw that video and its Continental Hotel. I believe
Speaker 1: that's where it was in La where he's running down
Speaker 1: the hallway half naked. He grabs a he yankes it
Speaker 1: to the floor. She lays helpless on the ground. He kicks,
Speaker 1: and he shoves, and he throws a vase at her.
Speaker 1: He drags her down the hall where he does all
Speaker 1: of this stuff. The hotel clearly had the video. They
Speaker 1: held on for it for quite some time because it
Speaker 1: happened years ago, and yet somehow, someway it didn't come
Speaker 1: to light until this. And then you're showing that the jurors.
Speaker 1: Jurors see this after that, every question they ask her,
Speaker 1: they're going to believe her before they believe him. They
Speaker 1: could even play the video him on social media, looking
Speaker 1: disheveled and contrite and saying that he was real messed up.
Speaker 1: He was in a messed up place, He had a
Speaker 1: lot going on. You see it right there there and
Speaker 1: there it is. That's him on social media of his
Speaker 1: own revolition, putting that post out. He's in no.
Speaker 2: Position to refute what she says, especially.
Speaker 1: If they can find their questions to her personal experiences,
Speaker 1: Like if they ask her dates and times and stuff
Speaker 1: like that, and they could try to get a caught
Speaker 1: up and all of that and she gives the wrong answers, Yeah.
Speaker 2: That could be incriminating.
Speaker 1: But if they're asking her about what she felt, like,
Speaker 1: how terrorized she felt, what the fear factor was like,
Speaker 1: these are things that you can't police, and it all
Speaker 1: impacts a jury. This is why I say he's in trouble.
Speaker 1: It's not just because of the litany of charges. It's
Speaker 1: not just because it's being brought by the Southern State
Speaker 1: of the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 2: It's not just because of those things. It's because.
Speaker 1: The person or people who are incriminating him, especially as
Speaker 1: it pertains to hers specifically, It's not going to be
Speaker 1: hard for her to be very convincing.
Speaker 4: It just isn't.
Speaker 1: Those are my thoughts as minimal as they may be
Speaker 1: in significance. But my next guest, that's not a problem.
Speaker 1: He has joining me to discuss. This is ESPN and
Speaker 1: ABC News legal analyst, one of the best in the business,
Speaker 1: I might add, he's also Sports Center anchor as well,
Speaker 1: the one and only Ryan Smith mc colleague.
Speaker 2: What's going on, buddy? How you doing, man? How's everything?
Speaker 4: Everything's good man? How you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm doing all right, man. Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1: Heard me talking about Diddy a little bit earlier. As
Speaker 1: trial date starts on May fifth. What's the significance of
Speaker 1: Cassandra Cassi Ventura testifying under her real name instead of
Speaker 1: anonymously like three other people named in the indictment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways.
Speaker 3: And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically,
Speaker 3: For me, this is huge because it lends credibility to
Speaker 3: her testimony. So you think about it like this, Cassie
Speaker 3: gets up on the stand, she's naming herself and for
Speaker 3: jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's
Speaker 3: this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle
Speaker 3: using her name. Now that's nothing against other accusers who
Speaker 3: might not be willing to use their names. It's just
Speaker 3: that how we tend to look at things, especially how
Speaker 3: juries might tend to look at things. They might say, well,
Speaker 3: this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going
Speaker 3: to back her a little bit more.
Speaker 4: We might believe her a little bit more, and it
Speaker 4: lends credibility to her allegations.
Speaker 3: The other thing is putting her name out there, and
Speaker 3: I know it's been out there in some connections in
Speaker 3: many ways so far.
Speaker 4: It also helps others possibly come forward. Prosecutors always talked
Speaker 4: about how this.
Speaker 3: Case might not be done, there might be other factors,
Speaker 3: and that could still be a possibility Legally, I think
Speaker 3: it's twofold Number one's showing of strength for the prosecution.
Speaker 3: And we are here, we are naming ourselves, we are
Speaker 3: out there, come at us. The other thing I think
Speaker 3: that's critical here is it puts the defense on the defensive.
Speaker 3: Here's why she gets up on the stand. She names herself.
Speaker 3: She's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It
Speaker 3: might make it harder for them to try to discredit her,
Speaker 3: or intimidate her, or come at her really hard.
Speaker 4: On cross examination.
Speaker 3: So those are some factors that play into all this,
Speaker 3: and I think for the prosecution it's a win to
Speaker 3: have her naming herself.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy.
Speaker 1: When you talk about her name instead of being anonymous,
Speaker 1: her name being put out there specifically, what can she
Speaker 1: speak to I'm talking about the actual specifications of the
Speaker 1: charges against them. How can she specifically speak against that.
Speaker 1: We heard the words racketeering for crowd out loud. What
Speaker 1: would she have to do with that? Explain that to
Speaker 1: my viewers.
Speaker 3: My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain
Speaker 3: what happened at these free coughs, and that's going to
Speaker 3: be huge. I think people tend to look at legal
Speaker 3: trials and they say, well, this person's going to give
Speaker 3: us the smoking gun, is going to tell us the
Speaker 3: one thing that's connect everything.
Speaker 4: But racketeering cases are a vast thing that you have
Speaker 4: to build. So you have to show through the different witnesses,
Speaker 4: through the different evidence, all the different things you have
Speaker 4: that there was a criminal enterprise going on in furtherance
Speaker 4: of these activities, in further once, in furtherance in.
Speaker 3: This case of these assaults of these different things in
Speaker 3: terms of prostitution of the allegations they're making.
Speaker 4: So you have to build that case.
Speaker 3: And I think what Cassie can do is we've all
Speaker 3: seen the video and there's been a lot of connections
Speaker 3: to her in that video.
Speaker 4: But this goes beyond that. This is her being able
Speaker 4: to frame what the situation was like for Diddy, what
Speaker 4: some of these events were like, so they can use
Speaker 4: her testimony along with the evidence they have to prove
Speaker 4: the racketeering.
Speaker 1: But Ryan, when we talk about that and just playing
Speaker 1: devil's advocate for seving Diddy in all likelihood, one would
Speaker 1: surmise would say she was consensual in these actions.
Speaker 2: Okay, she wasn't forced, et cetera.
Speaker 1: His proof could be the fact that they were in
Speaker 1: a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible,
Speaker 1: such such an insidious figure, why was she involved with
Speaker 1: him for so long? What defense do you anticipate he'll
Speaker 1: be able to make that he has a snowballs chance
Speaker 1: and you know what of making against her, particularly when
Speaker 1: she's the.
Speaker 2: One we saw him hit and kick on a video.
Speaker 4: That's the defense He's gonna say she was consensual.
Speaker 3: He's gonna say all the people involved, everybody the prosecutor
Speaker 3: is bringing in, was all consensual. That people did this
Speaker 3: because they liked that, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors,
Speaker 3: you got to look at it in terms of the
Speaker 3: way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building
Speaker 3: it in the same way or in a similar way
Speaker 3: that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person
Speaker 3: in power, a gatekeeper just certain things in this industry.
Speaker 3: If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways,
Speaker 3: you had to do the things he said, and this
Speaker 3: was how he did it, And these are the things
Speaker 3: these people had to do. I think you make a
Speaker 3: great point that they were in a relationship, that that
Speaker 3: might be part of what they might use. But my
Speaker 3: sense is that, and we don't all the prosecution's case.
Speaker 3: My sense is that they're going to build this and
Speaker 3: say she was in that relationship. But just because you're
Speaker 3: in a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control
Speaker 3: you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there
Speaker 3: was a point where he was doing this and doing
Speaker 3: things that she felt like she had to do in
Speaker 3: order to not.
Speaker 4: Only further her career, but in order to be a
Speaker 4: part of this world.
Speaker 3: And I think that's a one way in which prosecutors
Speaker 3: are going to try to build this case. They're going
Speaker 3: to try to build similarities among Cassie and other people
Speaker 3: that might testify and other people that are contributing to
Speaker 3: this case, to say this was a pattern, these are
Speaker 3: the things he did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1: But if she's willing to put her name on Front
Speaker 1: Street instead of being anonymous, and others refrained from doing so,
Speaker 1: won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy the anonymous ones.
Speaker 4: I love that you answer that question.
Speaker 3: That's a common thing that people ask when you talk
Speaker 3: about one person revealing their name and others not. And
Speaker 3: you make a great point because in some ways it
Speaker 3: looks like, well, they're not willing to stand behind their claims,
Speaker 3: so how can we believe their claims?
Speaker 4: What the judge and what others.
Speaker 3: Are going to have to decide in this case, and
Speaker 3: what probably will play out a little bit is the
Speaker 3: reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here. Cassie
Speaker 3: is a well known public figure. She was also connected
Speaker 3: in that initial videotape. We know that she is a
Speaker 3: part of this. Anybody who knows anything about this case.
Speaker 3: So in many ways, it's amazing that she's still coming
Speaker 3: forward and offering herself out there like this, with all
Speaker 3: the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment
Speaker 3: she might face. But Stephen A look at it from
Speaker 3: the other people's perspective. Are they supposed to be in
Speaker 3: a place where they're supposed to deal with the harassment
Speaker 3: and the public scrutiny. I think it becomes hard for
Speaker 3: people sometimes to realize that people who are accusers in
Speaker 3: cases like this, they come forward with their story, and
Speaker 3: as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath of
Speaker 3: sharing the story. They're harassed online, people get their address,
Speaker 3: they try to find them. That the complaints dog, the
Speaker 3: accudations dog them for most of their lives. How does
Speaker 3: that affect their ability to get a job, How does
Speaker 3: that affect their ability to live in society? So I
Speaker 3: think it's incredibly brave that Cassie's able to come forward
Speaker 3: and use her name, But she's also a public figure
Speaker 3: and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit.
Speaker 3: I think what will help the other accusers is they
Speaker 3: might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom,
Speaker 3: and maybe it'll be easier for the prostituting and state
Speaker 3: of yours. Hey, look, they don't have the public profile
Speaker 3: that she does. Let's try to hear their words and
Speaker 3: respect their privacy.
Speaker 1: The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject
Speaker 1: in the second, but the word anonymous, A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't realize what that means. They just says, okay,
Speaker 1: you don't know the meaning the public. But those who
Speaker 1: will testify against Ditty anonymously, does Diddy and his defense team.
Speaker 2: Know specifically who they are? Do they know their names, etc?
Speaker 2: Can you explain that to my audience.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they'll know their names. Discoveries should have all come out.
Speaker 3: A lot of that information should come out, unless there's
Speaker 3: some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to
Speaker 3: restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or
Speaker 3: that they can be threatened. But in deary, the way
Speaker 3: this should work is they should have a right to
Speaker 3: confront their accusers. They should have a right to know
Speaker 3: their names, background on them, and that's part of what
Speaker 3: they're going to try to use.
Speaker 4: To to credit their story.
Speaker 3: So, but the naming anonymous ends up being significant in
Speaker 3: a case like this because you mentioned it. Once you
Speaker 3: put Cassie's name out on Front Street, everybody's gonna hear
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 4: We're going to be waiting for the testimony. We're going
Speaker 4: to be trying to figure out what she said.
Speaker 3: You're gonna probably have to do press conferences possibly at
Speaker 3: some point. Speak are the other people signing up for
Speaker 3: that in order to share what happened to them? And
Speaker 3: I think that's the critical part of leaving their names
Speaker 3: anonymous in that courtroom. That stuff that's both to be
Speaker 3: confidential and allow them to.
Speaker 4: Go ahead and live their lives while also sharing their
Speaker 4: truth as the prosecution needs them to to build their case.
Speaker 1: The video that did he put out on social media
Speaker 1: where he appeared contrite and dishevel, those are the words
Speaker 1: that I used, basically saying he was fed up. He
Speaker 1: was in a very very bad place when he did
Speaker 1: what he did to Cassie Ventur.
Speaker 2: You see the video right there.
Speaker 1: How incriminating could that end up being against him? Now
Speaker 1: that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to
Speaker 1: the lawsuit and she's gonna come out on Front Street
Speaker 1: and say whatever it.
Speaker 4: Is that she has to say, it could be a
Speaker 4: very big problem.
Speaker 3: For him, because prosecutor's gonna pull up that videotape, they're
Speaker 3: gonna put it out there in court, and they're gonna say,
Speaker 3: look at what this man said.
Speaker 4: He is sorry for what he did. Folks, let's outline
Speaker 4: for you now what he did. Cassie.
Speaker 3: Let's get on the stand and outline for us what
Speaker 3: he did, and coupled with our evidence, that's going to
Speaker 3: prove our case. So typically when you have a situation
Speaker 3: like that, your lawyers will tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey,
Speaker 3: don't say anything. I know there's a temptation to do that.
Speaker 3: Don't say anything because it could be used against you.
Speaker 3: I think at Diddy's mind, it's a way to get
Speaker 3: public sympathy.
Speaker 4: It's a way to get.
Speaker 3: And I think in some way his defense team can
Speaker 3: say about this, hey, he's apologizing for the relationship.
Speaker 4: He is not a perfect person, but he is not
Speaker 4: a criminal. That's going to be their messaging.
Speaker 3: But still, you don't want to have to have a
Speaker 3: videotape out there from your client saying I'm sorry for
Speaker 3: what I did, giving the prosecution the ability to explore
Speaker 3: that and with their evidence with Cassie and with other
Speaker 3: witnesses to be able to prove, yeah, you're sorry for
Speaker 3: what you did because it was criminal. That's what prosecutors
Speaker 3: are going to want to do.
Speaker 1: Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do.
Speaker 1: What does this case earily remind you of as it
Speaker 1: pertains to other cases that may have existed out there
Speaker 1: in the past. When you think about what p did,
Speaker 1: he is going through right now, what's the comparison you
Speaker 1: draw it to.
Speaker 4: My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the R.
Speaker 4: Kelly case. Both of those cases involve the situation where
Speaker 4: prosecutors were able.
Speaker 3: To build it as you have a gatekeeper, and it's
Speaker 3: impossible to really make inroads in this area without the gatekeeper. Now,
Speaker 3: no know, people are going to hear and say, well,
Speaker 3: all of these people, they could have Diddy is doing this,
Speaker 3: they could have gone to Dre or somebody else. And
Speaker 3: there's a million other rap artists and production companies out there.
Speaker 3: But I think what they're trying to build in the
Speaker 3: same way that was built in the Weinstein case was
Speaker 3: he wasn't the only studio in town. Mirror Max wasn't
Speaker 3: the only place to make films, but in a particular way.
Speaker 3: Once you got into this world, there was a way
Speaker 3: to build your career, to foster development. And I think
Speaker 3: what this case draws a similarity to, and what prosecutors
Speaker 3: have been trying to do with these cases is show no.
Speaker 4: One is above the law.
Speaker 3: You can't go out, in prosecutor's mind, create a business
Speaker 3: and then make people do your bidding, even if it's illegal,
Speaker 3: in order to move up in that business. If it's
Speaker 3: a legitimate business, you can't do that.
Speaker 4: And so in the same way that the Weinstein case
Speaker 4: was prosecuted and the r. Kelly case was prosecuted.
Speaker 3: It feels like prosecuted or following the similar playbook here
Speaker 3: trying to make that point not only publicly but also
Speaker 3: in the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many
Speaker 3: ways were set up in further inst of Ditty and
Speaker 3: the people with him, and at the expense of these
Speaker 3: in their minds accusers and victims.
Speaker 2: We use words last question on this matter.
Speaker 1: We use words like criminal enterprise, We use words like
Speaker 1: racketeering and what have you. Is it wrong for us
Speaker 1: to get the impression that it's not Didty that they're
Speaker 1: after they're after him? Of course, please don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: But it's not just him. They're after a whole string
Speaker 1: of individuals that he's connected to, as opposed to it
Speaker 1: just be it was about R Kelly, it was about
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to be thereafter just Didty.
Speaker 1: It's like he's the guy to get, so all the
Speaker 1: dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody associated with it.
Speaker 1: That's the impression that I'm getting to that. You say, what,
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I say I completely agree, and I say I would
Speaker 3: go beyond that.
Speaker 4: The first thing is, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: They're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything
Speaker 3: that backed him and everything that created this center, because
Speaker 3: that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases.
Speaker 3: I know the people out there say, hey, just about Ditty.
Speaker 3: It's not just about Didy. It's about trying to.
Speaker 4: Uphold the law. It's not what prosecutor. That's how prosecutors
Speaker 4: see it.
Speaker 3: But the way I go beyond it is this, with
Speaker 3: each one of these cases, they are trying to send
Speaker 3: a message, not just to the.
Speaker 4: Ditties of the world or to the Harvey Weinstein or
Speaker 4: R Kelly's.
Speaker 3: They're trying to send a message to the people who
Speaker 3: have other things going on, or people who might come
Speaker 3: up later who might have ideas of doing something that
Speaker 3: they are saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you,
Speaker 3: we will come after you. The fact that Ditty is
Speaker 3: there in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things.
Speaker 4: About you, about people you know. So if you're doing
Speaker 4: something on the wrong side of the law and you
Speaker 4: think your power and your money and influence is going
Speaker 4: to protect you, it will not. And that's the message
Speaker 4: they're trying to send. We obviously, stephen A, we talk
Speaker 4: about this case. We have to see how it's litigated
Speaker 4: and how everything comes out. But for prosecutors, this is
Speaker 4: every success they have in this area is an another.
Speaker 3: Ability for them to be able to say to everybody
Speaker 3: else out there in all of these businesses, you are
Speaker 3: not above the law, no matter how much money or
Speaker 3: power you have.
Speaker 1: I want to transition back to the world to sports
Speaker 1: and off this p Diddy topic, and thank you so
Speaker 1: much for coming on Ryan and talking about this, But
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar
Speaker 1: settlement between NCAA and student and athletes past and present.
Speaker 1: By the way, this deal could reshape the business of
Speaker 1: college sports.
Speaker 3: Correct, Yeah, absolutely, And this deal is it's labeled as
Speaker 3: a two point eight billion dollar settlement, but really it's
Speaker 3: a deal that looks backwards and forwards. So the backwards
Speaker 3: part is it's spending billions of dollars to payback athletes
Speaker 3: who didn't who weren't able to make deals before NIL,
Speaker 3: who are part of these anti trust lawsuits that were
Speaker 3: all combined. So, for example, that could mean that athletes
Speaker 3: who made a lot of money for their schools, like
Speaker 3: Power five Conference football players, basketball players who.
Speaker 4: Make hundreds of thousands of dollars, small sport.
Speaker 3: Athletes a mid majors could end up making only hundreds
Speaker 3: of dollars, but in ways it kind of compensates them.
Speaker 4: The looking forward part ends up being interesting too, because
Speaker 4: what it does is it sets up sort of a
Speaker 4: salary cap, just like we say in pro sports, twenty
Speaker 4: million bucks or so for each school to spend on athletes.
Speaker 4: The idea is to try to rein in some of
Speaker 4: the NIL spending by boosters and all that. And it
Speaker 4: also sets something that I think is going to actually
Speaker 4: be a legal issue beyond the settlement, which is like
Speaker 4: a clearing house for nil deals. So if somebody's making
Speaker 4: a deal.
Speaker 3: Over six hundred bucks, they have a clearing house, it's
Speaker 3: going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is
Speaker 3: this circumventing the salary cap.
Speaker 4: If not, you can't do it.
Speaker 3: I think that one's going to face court challenges even
Speaker 3: after this settlement, at least it has a likelihood too.
Speaker 1: What I think the big part that turns me off,
Speaker 1: frind is that they're talking about cap and you know,
Speaker 1: revenue at twenty million per school or what have you,
Speaker 1: something along those lines. The two point eight million dollar
Speaker 1: billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive
Speaker 1: from what happened between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: to the athletes that would denied money at that particular
Speaker 1: moment in time, and sort of reimbursing them from missed
Speaker 1: ages and things of that nature. I understand that part,
Speaker 1: even though I think it should be more. My issue
Speaker 1: is why does it need to be capped? Why does
Speaker 1: it be capped at twenty million dollars as opposed to
Speaker 1: a percentage of revenue generated by the universities, just like
Speaker 1: you have in basketball or football, where there's a percentage
Speaker 1: of football or basketball related income or revenue that comes
Speaker 1: to the players.
Speaker 2: Why can't the same be with NCUBA athletes.
Speaker 1: That's I'm suspicious, is what I'm trying to say about
Speaker 1: that cap trying to derail the kind of money guys
Speaker 1: are able to get in NIL and guys and lady
Speaker 1: is able to get in nil and beyond and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. I'm kind of suspicious anytime I see a
Speaker 1: capped number associated with student athletes playing in the nc
Speaker 1: DOUBLEA under the ncublea umbrella, because I don't trust them
Speaker 1: one bit to that.
Speaker 4: You say what I say.
Speaker 3: The pushback to you is going to be, well, it's
Speaker 3: going to go up next year, it might be.
Speaker 4: More, and then it's going to be more.
Speaker 3: But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which
Speaker 3: is there's still a cap.
Speaker 4: And I think you make a great point.
Speaker 3: I also think what becomes interesting in what you're saying
Speaker 3: is the clearinghouse aspect of this.
Speaker 4: Think about this, stephen A.
Speaker 3: In the advent of NIL and even before that, athletes
Speaker 3: became in many ways, these college athletes became business people.
Speaker 3: They built up huge followings online, millions of people. Some
Speaker 3: of their income might be coming from boosters, some of
Speaker 3: them might be coming from their own deals. Are we
Speaker 3: now going to look at those deals that they in
Speaker 3: many ways created on their own and say, well, you're
Speaker 3: going to circumvent the salary caps, so you can't do that.
Speaker 3: Now we're back in the same bag that we were
Speaker 3: in before nil, which is not only your cap argument,
Speaker 3: which means people might be limited from getting their real
Speaker 3: market value, but then also even if you could go
Speaker 3: out and have millions of followers and do all these
Speaker 3: other things on your own, well, now we might try
Speaker 3: to cap that, We might try to limit that because
Speaker 3: we feel like it's circumventing the cap we already have.
Speaker 3: I am in agreement with you. I think when you
Speaker 3: have a situation like nil, it's almost like letting the
Speaker 3: cat out of the bag. Once they open that bag up,
Speaker 3: you can't close it off and now say, okay, let's
Speaker 3: pull everybody back in and cut the number and try
Speaker 3: to keep everybody down a little bit lower.
Speaker 4: That ship has already sailed.
Speaker 3: I think if people I think at this point the
Speaker 3: booster system, the fact that I agree with the idea
Speaker 3: of paying players directly from colleges, but I think to
Speaker 3: try to cap it and to try to rein it
Speaker 3: in is always going to be a problem, and it's
Speaker 3: always going to face legal challenges, and it's always gonna
Speaker 3: have critics because people are gonna say, just when you
Speaker 3: open the floodgates so we could make money and create
Speaker 3: businesses and earn more, you're trying to close them back
Speaker 3: up again to the benefit of schools, which is the
Speaker 3: same reason why we ended up in many ways in
Speaker 3: the nil spot in the first place.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you know it's bad when Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: was the one that made the argument in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one where he called them out and he said, I've
Speaker 1: known there's no business in America that could get away
Speaker 1: with doing this other.
Speaker 2: Than you guys.
Speaker 1: And sure enough, I think they're they're find trying to
Speaker 1: find an end a round to get around this stuff
Speaker 1: to do the same thing they've always been doing.
Speaker 2: So we'll see what happens with all of that.
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith, Man, I really really appreciate you taking time
Speaker 1: out of your busy schedule.
Speaker 2: Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much anytime.
Speaker 4: Man. Good to talk to you, all right.
Speaker 1: One of only Ryan Smith legal analysts ABC and ESPN.
Speaker 1: Also anchor for Sports Center. The Brothers outstanding, one of
Speaker 1: the best in the business, making no mistake about that.