On Wednesday, a federal judge dealing with the revamp of college sports regulations raised a significant complication in a $2.8 billion antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken asked the involved parties to revise the settlement proposal regarding roster limits—a move many schools had already initiated.
Wilken emphasized in a firm five-page document that defendants and NCAA member schools are responsible for dealing with any disruptions. She dismissed claims that altering the proposal could plunge college sports into disarray, giving 14 days for the parties to reengage with their mediator.
The settlement suggested schools discard scholarship limits and operate under roster limits, meaning that all team members could receive financial aid. This change was expected to lead to the phasing out of some walk-ons, athletes on partial scholarships, and—in extreme cases—entire teams. In anticipation of the settlement approval, schools had begun making cuts, leading to players seeking new teams. This prompted attorneys to suggest reversing all the changes could exacerbate an already chaotic situation.
Wilken responded by stating that any premature actions were not her concern. She critiqued that her initial approval of the settlement wasn’t a guarantee for final approval, which she had previously granted in October, prompting preemptive moves by schools nationwide. With a tight schedule before the settlement’s July 1 effective date, a re-evaluation is urgently needed. Football practices will begin shortly thereafter, leaving questions regarding whether rosters would fit the former average (128) or adjust to the new limit (105).
A plaintiff’s attorney, in collaboration with the NCAA and conferences, expressed intent to address the court’s issues. “We will work to engage with the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns,” noted Steve Berman. Failure to rectify the situation could result in a trial against the NCAA. The NCAA and defendant conferences shared a joint statement reiterating a focus on securing the approval of the settlement, which aims to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while maintaining equity in college sports.
Steven Molo, an attorney representing over 190 athletes, welcomed the ruling as a positive outcome. “We appreciate the court’s recognition of the difficulties posed by the proposed settlement on student-athletes committed to their sports,” Molo stated, advocating against arbitrary roster limits.
Wilken confirmed readiness to proceed with other settlement aspects like the $2.8 billion in back damages and distribution of $20.5 million by schools to athletes. However, the deal has been consistently viewed as all-or-nothing. The judge put out a pretrial schedule, with hearings expected to last until September, highlighting the potential for resolution via trial.
Attorneys should not be surprised by this development. Following the April 7 settlement hearing, Wilken suggested a phased implementation of roster limits, proposing a “grandfathering” approach for current roster athletes. She noted this strategy could be achieved through attrition rather than drastic changes.
Furthermore, Wilken dismissed arguments about the benefits for athletes receiving payments or new scholarship opportunities outweighing the harms to those displaced by the settlement. “The Court can approve the settlement only if deemed fair, reasonable, and adequate, particularly concerning equitable treatment of class members,” she quoted a previous ruling.
It remains unclear how many roster spots will vanish across numerous schools, with some estimates reaching thousands. What’s certain is this ruling adds uncertainty regarding schools’ preparations for upcoming seasons. The judge’s attention is equally focused on athletes losing opportunities as it is on the multibillion-dollar system surrounding college sports.