Home All News Athletes challenge roster restrictions and advocate for walk-ons in NCAA House agreement

Athletes challenge roster restrictions and advocate for walk-ons in NCAA House agreement

0

OAKLAND, Calif. — A walk-on football player from Stanford and a gymnast from Temple have expressed their concerns regarding a proposed settlement that aims to significantly alter the landscape of college athletics. Their objections highlight issues with roster limit proposals and restitution directed primarily at scholarship players, claiming these elements are inequitable. The final hearing for this legal proceeding is scheduled for this spring.

David Kasemervisz, who served as a “preferred walk-on” football player at Stanford during his four years, argues that the settlement’s language, which allocates $2.8 billion in back payments for name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, should extend to athletes like him as well, not just those on scholarships. “It is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation, whereas the teammate alongside him in the same game is worth nothing,” he stated in a letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, requesting to address the court at the hearing set for April 7.

Emma Reathaford, a gymnast, echoed similar sentiments in her request to speak at the upcoming hearing. She pointed out that the proposed roster limits could jeopardize the participation of numerous student-athletes who have dedicated themselves to Division I sports, as some could be cut from their respective teams. While these limits might create more scholarship opportunities, they could also eliminate spots for walk-on athletes, thereby affecting their chances to compete.

In a separate objection filed by a group of seven former and current players last October, the settlement’s plans were criticized for potentially undervaluing player compensation. The settlement allows schools the option to disburse up to $20.5 million to players for the next academic year, but the complaint argues that this amount is significantly below market value and constitutes an artificial limitation on earnings.

It’s important to note that objections to this settlement may be submitted until Friday.