They may not want it, but Nebraska football is part of a larger legal drama that will play out in the coming months.

According to ESPN.com, “[s]even women, including three female athletes, are suing the NCAA, alleging the organization failed to protect them from alleged sexual assaults by male college athletes despite having an obligation to do so.” The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan Wednesday.

From the report:

The lawsuit accuses the NCAA of negligence, fraud and breach of contract. It argues that the NCAA, as a regulatory body for college athletics, had a duty to the women “to supervise, regulate, monitor and provide reasonable and appropriate rules to minimize the risk of injury or danger to student-athletes and by student-athletes.”

The NCAA “knew or should have known that their actions or inaction in light of the rate and extent of sexual assaults reported and made known to [the NCAA] by male student-athletes … would cause harm to female student-athletes and non-student-athletes at NCAA member institution campuses in both the short- and long-term,” the lawsuit states.

A former Nebraska volleyball player, Capri Davis, is one of the seven plaintiffs in the suit.  It’s alleged that Davis and another unnamed female student-athlete were groped without consent by two members of the Nebraska football team in the spring of 2019.  While not specifically named in the suit, ESPN.com identified the two Nebraska football players as Katerian LeGrone and Andre Hunt.  The unidentified female has also claimed that she was raped by LeGrone and a different teammate in the fall of 2018.

In late August of last year, Nebraska confirmed that two football players, Hunt, a wide receiver, and LeGrone, a tight end, had been indefinitely suspended by the program for unspecified reasons.  A little over three months later, it was reported that both of the players have been “found to have violated the school’s sexual misconduct policies and face a 2½-year suspension from the university.”

The extended suspension stemmed from an alleged rape of an NU student on Aug. 25 and, even as a police investigation remained open, no criminal charges had been filed.  There was a development on the legal front in mid-December, though, as LeGrone and Hunt were arrested on one count of suspicion of first-degree sexual assault and one count of suspicion of aiding and abetting first-degree sexual assault, respectively, even as neither had been formally charged at the time.

Yet another disturbing development surfaced around that same time as local media reported that an additional six sexual assault reports have been filed with the Lincoln Police Department that “are connected to either one or both of the former Husker players accused of sexual misconduct.” Four of the new reports involved non-consensual sexual penetration, three of which were designated as rape, while two included allegations of inappropriate touching of private parts.

In early December, Hunt and LeGrone entered the NCAA transfer database.

The twin portal entries also play a role in the suit.  Again, from ESPN.com‘s report:

… One of the complaints in the lawsuit filed Wednesday pertains to how the NCAA allows athletes who have been “accused or convicted of sexual assault or sexual violence to evade responsibility by transferring to other schools.”

The NCAA “routinely issue[s] harsh punishments against student-athletes who accept payments in exchange for use of their likenesses, or who accept free meals, but they have no specific penalty for student-athletes who commit sexual assault,” the lawsuit states.

“[University of Nebraska-Lincoln] has fostered a culture in which female victims are discouraged from reporting sexual assaults, sexual harassment, stalking, and other forms of general discrimination when those acts are perpetrated by male student-athletes in order to protect UNL, the male athletics program, male student-athletes, and the NCAA, at the expense of female victims,” the lawsuit further stated, according to the Lincoln Journal-Star.

Twice, Davis, who has since transferred to Texas, and the unidentified female student-athlete went to the school’s Title IX office regarding the groping incident.  Neither time, the suit states, was the incident investigated as required by law.  After learning that Hunt and LeGrone were accused of raping a student, the pair went to the Title IX Office a third time.  This time, an investigation was launched.  That investigation ultimately led to the two Nebraska football players being expelled from the university.

When Adidas executive James Gatto was charged last September for federal crimes related to bribing college basketball recruits, it was clear that only the first shoe in what could become a multi-year prosecution had dropped.

Seven months later, another shoe has hit the ground.

On Tuesday, Gatto, along with Adidas consultant Merl Code and sports management executive Christian Dawkins, faced a new round of charges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a “superseding indictment” (an indictment that adds additional charges) the three men are accused making or attempting to make “illicit cash payments to the families of high school basketball players” in exchange for those players matriculating to one of four Adidas-sponsored schools: the University of Louisville, the University of Miami, the University of Kansas and North Carolina State University.

Understanding the theory of crime and charges

Everyone agrees that payments to recruits are violations of NCAA amateurism rules. These rules render student-athletes ineligible if they or their family members accept prohibited financial benefits. Student-athletes are deemed ineligible even if they weren’t aware that family members had accepted gifts on their behalf. Universities who enroll rule-breaking student-athletes can also be adversely impacted. These schools usually violate their membership agreements with the NCAA when their players break amateurism rules. They can face an assortment of NCAA punishments, such as vacated wins or forfeiture of scholarships. While courts have rejected certain aspects of amateurism rules, those rules’ ability to prohibit “under-the-table” payments remains in place.

Not everyone agrees that payments to recruits are violations of the law. While NCAA rules may sometimes seem like laws, they are not laws. Instead, they are contractual requirements for admittance and subsequent compliance in the not-for-profit (but billion dollar generating) entity known as the NCAA. Nonetheless, the government views these payments as the ultimate consequence of a criminal enterprise: a plot to convince top recruits to attend a particular college, which in turn leads benefiting recruits to consider endorsing Adidas and hiring Dawkins once they pursue the NBA.

To that end, the Justice Department contends that the defendants, along with certain college basketball coaches, participated in illegal schemes to defraud the four aforementioned universities. This theory asserts that the universities were victimized since they enrolled superstar recruits who, because family members had accepted payments, were ineligible under NCAA rules. These universities thus became vulnerable to NCAA punishment. They also suffered an opportunity cost in that they could have instead awarded athletic scholarships to rule-abiding (if perhaps less athletically talented) recruits.

The Justice Department reasons that it is a stakeholder in these transactions. After all, the federal government subsidizes universities in an assortment of ways. It does so through guarantees of financial aid, grants and various tax breaks and incentives. From that lens, college basketball “corruption”—with “corruption” referring to voluntary exchanges between sneaker executives, coaches and families of recruits so that recruits enroll at specific colleges and in turn help those colleges’ teams generate basketball wins and accompanying revenue—is linked to the government.

Building on this theory, the government argues that Gatto and the other defendants partook in wire fraud. Wire fraud refers to using wire communication (such as phone communications or electronic transfers) that take place between states and are intended to pursue an unlawful objective. Here, the Justice Department insists that the defendants knowingly devised a scheme to use wires to bribe family members of recruits.

Each wire fraud charge carries a potential sentence of 20 years in prison; there are two for each defendant in the superseding indictment. In addition, each defendant faces one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison. These charges follow a series of other criminal charges filed against these defendants last fall.

Defendants attempt to debunk this theory of crime

The notion that colleges enrolling superstar recruits are “victims” might strike you as unpersuasive. These recruits are often among the most coveted high school students in the country. So long as their under-the-table payments remain hidden, these recruits will likely significantly improve their schools’ basketball programs and help them compete for the NCAA championship. In turn, those schools will generate more revenue through improved ticket, increased merchandise sales and higher TV ratings. Schools with winning basketball programs also usually gain through favorable media attention, which in turn helps those schools’ admissions and fundraising efforts.

The idea that school officials were unaware of such “conspiracies” to pay their recruits might also come across as improbable. Even the government’s indictment gives reason to question these officials’ supposed obliviousness. For instance, the indictment describes an intercepted phone call in which Code discusses Adidas transferring money to a Louisville recruit’s family. Code says, “this is one of those instances where we needed to step up and help one of our flagship schools, you know, secure a five star caliber kid.” Code’s own words get to the fact that the school—Louisville—clearly benefited by Code arranging for payment to the recruit.

In light of these points, attorneys for the defendants have outlined their arguments against the Justice Department’s case. In a filing last December, these attorneys denigrated the government’s theory as one that attempts, without any precedent, to criminalize NCAA rules.

As the defense attorneys have reasoned, it has never been a crime in the U.S. to pay a recruit to attend a particular college. Further, they stress that the legal definition of wire fraud requires both intent to harm and the presence of a victim. Here, the conspiracy arguably intended to benefit everyone involved. Likewise, there might not have been any victims: the recruit and his family gained money; the college gained a top recruit and enhanced basketball program; the sneaker company gained a sponsorship with an enhanced basketball program; and the agent/advisor gained a lead on signing the recruit once he turns pro.

Potential fallout for the implicated schools

As the government sees it, the four schools mentioned in the superseding indictment are victims of interstate conspiracies to bribe recruits.

The NCAA probably sees it differently.

Take the indictment’s depiction of NC State. According to the Justice Department, in 2015 Gatto and others conspired to funnel $40,000 to the father of a recruit who was “widely regarded as the top high school recruit in the state of North Carolina and who had played for an [Adidas] sponsored AAU team.” These payments were intended to secure the commitment of the player to play at NC State and to convince the recruit to later sign an endorsement deal with Adidas.

Given the indictment’s purported timeline and accompanying player description, it appears the player in question is Dallas Mavericks rookie guard Dennis Smith. Smith was North Carolina’s 2015 Gatorade High School Player of the Year at Trinity Christian in Fayetteville. He also played on an Adidas-sponsored AAU team (“Team Loaded”). He then played one season at NC State in 2016-17. If Smith is the player, it doesn’t appear Adidas got all what it bargained for: after declaring for the NBA draft, Smith “spurned” Adidas to sign an endorsement deal with rival Under Armour.

The indictment contends that an unnamed NC State coach played an instrumental role in transmitting a payment from Adidas to this player in question. The coach informed Gatto that this star recruit contemplated de-committing prior to start of the 2016-17 season. Concerned by this development, Gatto then arranged for an Adidas consultant to wire money to the coach, who then paid the recruit’s parent. Gatto then used a series of illegal financial maneuvers to arrange for the consultant to be reimbursed.

The NCAA will likely dwell on the allegation that NC State coach operated as a “middle man” in the transaction. If proven, such activity would justify not only an NCAA punishment of the coach but also one for NC State.

The NCAA will likely also explore the role of financial transactions involving so-called “sham invoices,” a term used repeatedly in the superseding indictment. These invoices normally entail fake bills or fabricated expenses that lead to illegitimate payments. Here, Gatto and Code are accused of financing payments to recruits by submitting sham invoices to Adidas.

For instance, to conceal a payment to a Louisville recruit, Gatto allegedly approved a sham invoice for $30,000 to an AAU team that was managed by Code. The approval allegedly led to wire fraud in that ill-gotten money was wired to the bank in the name of the AAU team. The payment was falsely described as “July Travel Team Expenses” for the AAU team. Similarly, Gatto is accused of concealing a $70,000 payment related to a parent of a Kansas recruit under the guise of a “Tournament/Activation” fee. Last month, Jon Wertheim and I detailed critical aspects of Adidas’ sponsorship deals with colleges, including Louisville, and the possibility for problematic transactions. The NCAA will likely take a close look at financial transactions linking colleges, sneaker companies and AAU teams.

Potential fallout for the implicated players and their family members

In theory, players and/or their family members who took money could also be charged with wire fraud. According to the Justice Department, they knowingly accepted payments that were delivered through an illegal conspiracy. There is also the possibility of tax fraud since these payments were presumably not reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

It is unlikely, however, that any player or family member will be charged. The Justice Department is clearly interested in building a case against college coaches, sneaker executives and the financial brokers who help to facilitate questionable transactions. So long as they cooperate—including by turning over emails, texts and supplying honest witness statements—players and their family members will likely remain only potential witnesses instead of persons of interest, targets or defendants.

Michael McCann is SI’s legal analyst. He is also the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and co-author with Ed O’Bannon of the new book Court Justice: The Inside Story of My Battle Against the NCAA.

Allrounder Ben Stokes could be returning to New Zealand again this summer.

Stokes, who played a short spell for Canterbury in the Ford Trophy, has been named in the England Twenty squad play Australia and New Zealand in a tri-series tournament.

“Ben Stokes is included, though his involvement remains subject to any relevant legal or disciplinary developments in relation to the incident in Bristol in September,” a press release by England Cricket stated.

“Should the ECB Board receive formal confirmation that Stokes has either been charged or that he will face no charges, they would convene within 48 hours to make a decision on his availability for the team at that stage,” the release continued.

Stokes spent a month in New Zealand late last year visiting his parents in Christchurch and playing for Canterbury in the Ford Trophy 50 overs competition and Twenty20 Super Smash League.

The 26-year-old New Zealand-born allrounder is currently suspended from the England team as he waits to learn whether he will be charged over his role in an incident outside a nightclub in the England city of Bristol in September.

Stokes had mixed fortunes on the field in his brief stint with Canterbury. He scored 36 runs in three 50 overs matches while taking 1-144 and he scored 133 runs in three Twenty20 innings, taking two wickets.

Stokes has been named in England’s squad for a one-day series in Australia in January but his selection is provisional on any future legal action.