Lawyers working towards the approval of a $2.8 billion settlement in a significant case involving college sports have highlighted that nearly 102,000 athletes have stepped forward to claim damages. This comes as they counter criticisms against the agreement, labeling it as an “intergalactic paradigm shift” for the NCAA.
Filed on Monday in federal court, the attorneys detailed that out of almost 390,000 individuals covered by this class-action lawsuit, only 343 had chosen to opt-out while 73 registered objections. On the other hand, 101,935 athletes either completed claim forms or updated their payment details, qualifying them for a share of the settlement. This fund aims to distribute nearly $2.8 billion among those who participated in college sports before the NCAA allowed agreements concerning name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights in 2021.
A crucial decision will be made by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7 regarding the finalization of the terms of this lawsuit settlement against the NCAA and five conferences. The settlement not only involves the backpay of $2.8 billion but also grants educational institutions the ability to pay an additional $20.5 million directly to players for NIL purposes, starting from the upcoming academic year. Currently, NIL payments are sourced from third parties, which remains permissible under the new settlement terms.
Lead attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler penned a comprehensive 60-page brief, referencing a 2015 appellate court ruling that dismissed potential $5,000 payments to players, terming them a “quantum leap” in the context of college sports. The attorneys emphasized that if those payments were a significant leap, this new settlement represents an even larger “intergalactic paradigm shift.”
The attorneys also argued against multiple objections filed, emphasizing:
– Despite potential losses due to new roster limits—which will enlarge the number of scholarships yet reduce overall roster spots—the direct compensation and benefits, worth $20 billion over the next decade, outweigh these drawbacks.
– While the core of the House settlement is antitrust-related, it should not address Title IX concerns. However, should Title IX apply to revenue sharing—contrary to the stance of the Trump Administration—nothing in the settlement prevents schools from allocating extra funds for female athletes.
– Challenges regarding the alleged unfair representation of athletes, particularly walk-ons who achieved significant success, lack validity in their claims for higher damages.
– The absence of protest against a $475 million attorney fee request underscores the settlement’s strength.
On the eve of a U.S. House committee hearing on NIL, where key figures like Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman—also chair of the NCAA Division I Council—and South Carolina football coach Shane Beamer supported the settlement, Whitman emphasized the potential role of Congress. A standardized national law could provide clearer compliance guidelines for schools, either adhering to a federal court order or state laws.
In recent remarks, attorneys highlighted that Judge Wilken had previously dismissed most objections during preliminary approval last October. The upcoming April hearing will offer an opportunity for further presentations from objectors and plaintiff attorneys, who have noted the essence of any settlement as a compromise.
The NCAA has expressed its support for the settlement, suggesting it will further the substantial transformations currently underway in college sports by increasing allowable benefits for student-athletes to nearly half of athletic revenues and removing limits on scholarships.
