Most of the concerns raised about the recent lawsuit settlement affecting college sports center on how the new roster limits will influence athletes in “Olympic sports.” These athletes have already experienced cuts from their teams as a result of these changes.
Under the terms of the settlement, the NCAA has introduced roster limits for institutions that opt to participate in the agreement. While these limits allow for an increase in the number of scholarships that schools can provide, estimates suggest they could also result in the elimination of over 10,000 positions in non-revenue sports due to restrictions on the number of walk-ons allowed.
Megan and Kevin Lang shared their distress after learning their daughter had been told in an abrupt and harsh manner that she would not have a place on the Ohio University soccer team for the 2025-2026 season. They expressed concern that this situation sharply contrasts with the NCAA’s stated mission of providing a “world-class athletics and academic experience” for student-athletes.
Individuals wishing to voice their objections to the settlement have until Friday to do so. A federal court hearing is scheduled for April 7, during which Judge Claudia Wilken will consider final approval of the settlement terms.
The settlement paves the way for schools to pay athletes up to $20.5 million in compensation for their name, image, and likeness. However, institutions choosing to adopt this payment model will also have to adhere to the new roster limits.
A few swimmers have expressed their concerns in letters to Wilken, citing the sport’s potential for significant roster reductions due to the reliance on walk-on participants. De Ann Woodall-Watson highlighted that her son, William, was cut from the swim team at Utah, noting that he would have selected a different educational path if he had not chosen to swim there.
The Intercollegiate Tennis Association has also weighed in, urging decision-makers to thoroughly evaluate the potential unforeseen effects on non-football and non-basketball sports and their participants, rather than just considering the positive intentions behind the settlement.
Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, mentioned that he did not expect the small number of objections raised on Wednesday to hinder the approval process. He reassured that those who believe they have been negatively impacted by the roster limits still have legal options available to them.
Kessler clarified that the settlement does not compel the NCAA to enforce roster limits but rather allows them to do so without hindrance. He suggested that any grievances should be directed towards the NCAA itself.
The NCAA has indicated that these roster limits form part of a larger strategy aimed at enhancing athletes’ experiences, which includes offering core guarantees such as improved healthcare, increased scholarship opportunities, and safeguards for those athletes who secure them.
Additional objections were raised by Jelena Sever, a former soccer player from Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who noted that despite having gained exposure by scoring a goal in 2021, she would only receive around $280 in back compensation from the settlement. Another objection came from a walk-on football player at Minnesota, who criticized the decision to limit backpay to scholarship athletes only.
Kessler discussed the development of a framework by experts to determine how the $2.8 million payout would be allocated, stating that all athletes have the choice to opt-out of the class-action lawsuit and pursue their individual legal claims.
He emphasized that fairness is key, saying, “You can’t just give more money to someone at the expense of another because they want more money.” He confirmed that the decision regarding the payout structure came from expert opinions rather than the lawyers involved.
