Numerous objections have been lodged against a $2.8 billion settlement related to antitrust claims against the NCAA and major collegiate conferences. These concerns encompass various issues, including restrictions on team rosters, compliance with Title IX, and accusations regarding an inequitable salary cap. Nevertheless, legal representatives involved in the case remain confident that these objections won’t hinder the progress of this landmark lawsuit in the current year.
The deadline for filing objections to the settlement, often referred to as the House settlement, passed recently. This settlement proposes significant financial compensation for former athletes and allows educational institutions to allocate up to $20.5 million annually for payments to athletes regarding the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is set to review at least 14 objections ranging from individual letters from soccer players to comprehensive legal briefs critiquing the settlement details. The judges aim to hold a hearing on April 7 to assess the final approval of the proposed agreement. The involved schools are eager to implement this agreement starting from the next academic term.
According to Rakesh Kilaru, who serves as lead counsel for the NCAA in this lawsuit, the objections do not uncover new issues that weren’t raised earlier in the settlement review process. He expresses confidence that the judge will find nothing within these objections compelling enough to reconsider the settlement.
Plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler highlights that over 40,000 athletes have submitted claims for compensation as a strong indicator of the settlement’s validity. The main defendants in this lawsuit include the NCAA and major conferences such as the Big Ten, Southeastern, Big 12, Atlantic Coast, and Pac-12.
Among the contentious points regarding the settlement is the proposed salary cap. As the Biden administration’s terms come to an end, their Justice Department voiced similar concerns, arguing that the set figure of $20.5 million, representing 22% of the major schools’ revenue from TV and other sources, imposes an unfair salary cap on athletes.
One ground for objection stated that the set amount is “totally arbitrary,” asserting that such restrictions contradict the antitrust principles the settlement aims to rectify. However, the attorneys who brokered the settlement contest this assertion, noting that athletes possess the option to opt out of the class-action lawsuit and pursue separate claims. Additionally, third-party NIL payments would still be permitted and would not affect the $20.5 million figure mentioned in the settlement terms.
Kilaru emphasizes that those raising questions about the settlement need to consider the alternatives for a more effective solution. He explains how they consulted with lawyers experienced in collective bargaining, ensuring the negotiation concluded with a resolution to antitrust claims that benefits everyone involved.
Title IX considerations also play a significant role in the discussions surrounding the settlement, as it is designed to ensure gender equality in educational programs, including sports. Recent guidance from the Biden administration’s Education Department indicated that NIL payments should be classified similarly to educational benefits, potentially putting institutions at risk of legal challenges if they don’t distribute funds equitably between male and female athletes.
While this issue could complicate the settlement’s approval, Kessler believes it shouldn’t prevent it from advancing. He insists that this case is primarily about antitrust issues, not Title IX compliance, maintaining that the settlement’s terms do not resolve Title IX matters, which would need to be addressed separately by schools.
Additionally, concerns have arisen regarding roster limits as many athletes have already been affected by changes in team sizes in anticipation of the settlement. While some athletes, particularly walk-ons, may lose their spots due to reduced roster sizes, the NCAA views this adjustment as beneficial overall, arguing that prior scholarship limits had also been arbitrary.
Kessler expresses that objections concerning roster limits will likely not impede the judge’s approval of the settlement. He reiterates that roster sizes were established by the NCAA and were part of a negotiated compromise to reach the settlement.
The distribution of the substantial fund has also attracted critiques, particularly from walk-on football players, who are excluded from receiving payments, as well as from those in less prominent sports receiving minimal compensation. Gabe Feldman, who oversees Tulane’s Sports Law program and is monitoring the settlement’s progress, summarizes that it is common for not every participant in a widespread lawsuit like this to be satisfied. He further asserts that the case should primarily be viewed through the lens of antitrust litigation, which is expected to gain the judge’s endorsement on April 7.
Feldman acknowledges the inherent limitations of the lawsuit, stating that its scope does not extend to transforming the entire landscape of college athletics, and the NCAA will still face gaps to fill moving forward.
