Athletes involved in a legal case against the NCAA are seeking a significant transformation in the way they are represented as they prepare for possible financial compensation from their schools. In a recent communication to the judge overseeing the settlement agreement, athletes Grant House, Sedona Prince, and Nya Harrison expressed their satisfaction with the proposed terms but emphasized the importance of establishing a players’ association. They believe that such an organization would better advocate for their needs in the complicated contract negotiations that are becoming increasingly prevalent in collegiate sports.

The athletes noted that a players’ association could standardize contracts related to name-image-likeness (NIL) rights, ensuring minimum payment levels and health benefits for student-athletes. They highlighted that professional sports leagues include players in critical discussions via their respective associations, whereas collegiate athletes seem sidelined from these essential decision-making processes. Their letter pointed out the need for a systematic framework that cultivates a healthy environment for athletes, allowing them to thrive within the college sports system.

The proposed settlement, valued at $2.8 billion, is set to distribute funds to both current and former players over the next decade. However, a significant issue left unaddressed in the settlement is whether athletes should be classified as employees of their educational institutions. The NCAA is actively lobbying Congress to prevent this classification, fearing that such a change could result in substantial financial burdens on college sports programs.

While the NCAA has not yet commented on the athletes’ letter, there have been developments on the organizing front. Earlier in the year, the National College Players Association announced outreach to college football players through a licensing group affiliated with the NFL Players’ Association. Additionally, another group aimed at organizing college athletes, known as athletes.org, has reportedly gained around 4,000 members. The letter’s authors expressed their desire to collaborate with athletes.org in their endeavors.

A court hearing to discuss the approval of the settlement is scheduled for April 7. The input from the athletes may play a vital role in how U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken assesses the longevity and viability of the settlement. However, attorney for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Kessler, indicated that the athletes’ letter serves as a supportive endorsement of the settlement while also expressing their interest in forming a players’ association. Kessler praised their commitment to addressing these critical issues on behalf of college athletes.

The question of whether college athletes can be classified as employees is complex and fraught with legal challenges. Several cases are currently under consideration by the National Labor Relations Board, including grievances against institutions such as USC and the Pac-12, a unionization initiative by the men’s basketball team at Dartmouth, and an unfair labor complaint filed against Notre Dame. Moreover, a federal lawsuit is ongoing in Pennsylvania, initiated by a former Villanova football player, Trey Johnson. These developments could ultimately influence the future classification of college athletes as employees, although lengthy court disputes are expected.