Eight female athletes have submitted an appeal against an influential NCAA antitrust settlement, arguing that the proposed distribution of $2.7 billion in back pay disproportionately disadvantages women athletes from monetizing their name, image, and likeness.
The settlement had recently received approval from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, facilitating direct athlete compensation from universities and signaling a shift away from the NCAA’s longstanding amateurism model.
The appellants, who have experiences in sports such as soccer, volleyball, and track, include Kacie Breeding from Vanderbilt, Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron, and Elizabeth Arnold from the College of Charleston, and Kate Johnson from Virginia. Their prior objections to the settlement have given them the right to file this appeal.
Ashlyn Hare, an attorney advocating for the athletes, expressed in an official statement that the settlement potentially breaches Title IX—a federal statute that prohibits gender-based discrimination in education settings. “Our stance supports settling the case, but not at the expense of an inaccurate agreement that neglects federal mandates,” Hare commented. “A significant error excluding Title IX considerations results in female athletes being deprived of $1.1 billion. Implementing the current payout plan could inflict lasting damage on women’s sports.”
The legal representatives of the settlement plaintiffs responded to the appeal by stating it would cause significant delays in payments to hundreds of thousands of athletes, postponing distribution by several months at the minimum. “The grounds for this appeal center on a Title IX issue that Judge Wilken has repeatedly and appropriately addressed,” their statement highlighted.
Financial projections of the settlement indicate likely benefits for prominent football and basketball players from major institutions, who are expected to receive a substantial portion of the permissible $20.5 million annual distribution colleges can share with athletes during the subsequent year. Conversely, non-revenue-generating sports might face repercussions such as cut scholarships or roster reductions.
“This settlement largely prioritizes football and basketball with negligible benefits for female athletes,” Hare argued, noting legislative rejections of attempts to apply Title IX exclusions to profitable sports. “The NCAA acknowledged our perspective, and our appeal reiterates the arguments previously supported by the NCAA and the conferences before the case’s settlement.”
The appeal, brought forward by Hutchinson Black and Cook, based in Boulder, Colorado, is destined to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.