College roster limit dispute may head to trial

    0
    0

    The final phase in the ongoing $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement saga regarding roster limits has reached a crescendo as attorneys from both sides await U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s forthcoming decision. At the heart of the matter is whether Wilken will endorse the newly proposed settlement or propel the issue towards a trial that could disrupt college athletics for the indefinite future.

    For one of the leading attorneys, Jeffrey Kessler, the path forward is crystal clear. Kessler, who represents thousands of players in the litigation against the NCAA and major conferences, stresses that Judge Wilken has already indicated her expectations: “She made it very clear,” Kessler said. “She said, ‘You have one chance to fix it.’ I believe we 100% fixed it. If she disagrees, we go to trial.”

    After being sent back to renegotiate last month, the involved attorneys arrived at a settlement compromise. This latest agreement aims to address issues arising from the impending roster limits by allowing cut players to either rejoin their original teams or transition to new ones, without counting against the newly proposed caps.

    However, dissenting athletes argue that the damage has been done, having been disregarded in past roster decisions. Their arguments were submitted before last Friday’s deadline, and Judge Wilken is anticipated to soon decide whether to greenlight the proposal or allow the case to proceed to trial, potentially commencing next fall.

    “If they don’t appropriately deal with how they harmed the current students, I would be surprised if she approved it,” said Mike Rueda from the law firm Withers. He emphasized that Judge Wilken’s previous concerns were based on steps being prematurely taken before the settlement had official sanction.

    The objectors submitted a frank brief outlining the harm incurred, illustrating the continuous feedback from affected athletes and their families. These communications frequently used expressions such as “unfair,” “blindsided,” “chaos,” “harm,” and “disservice” to describe the impact of immediate roster limit implementation.

    In her initial disapproval of the roster-limit concept, Judge Wilken suggested a “grandfathering in” condition, allowing players to retain their spots for the duration of their collegiate careers. The overarching plan, impacting many sports, includes scaling down team sizes while ensuring all team members qualify for full scholarships. For instance, women’s swimming might reduce team spots but concurrently increase scholarship opportunities.

    Plaintiffs’ lawyers maintain that the agreement has much more to offer, providing schools the right to financially compensate athletes for their name, image, and likeness. Additionally, around $2.8 billion has been allocated as damage fees for past players, aligning with NIL participation.

    Despite their position, attorneys for the objecting parties contend the roster limits place undue burdens on athletes, especially walk-ons or those with partial scholarships. They believe the proposed solution lacks adequate guarantees for reinstating athletes to previous conditions and have proposed alternatives such as:

    – Reinstating cut players to their plans, irrespective of any transfers made.
    – Establishing an arbitration system for disputes over whether a cut was attributable to the new roster limits or other reasons.
    – Ensuring athletes retain claims for potential damages linked to premature cuts made in preparation for an expected settlement.

    Reflecting on the opposing stance, Kessler expressed skepticism over their agreement on any solutions: “They say when you’re a hammer, you’re looking for a nail, and these are objectors, so they’re looking for things to keep objecting to,” he stated, insisting that the issue has been resolved and recognizing the achievement is what’s needed.