At least 18 objections have been filed against the $2.8 billion settlement of antitrust allegations against the NCAA and the nation’s biggest conferences. The concerns range from roster limits and Title IX issues to what some call an unfair salary cap. However, attorneys involved in the case say they do not see any threats to pushing the industry-changing lawsuit through this year.
The deadline to submit objections to the so-called House settlement arrived on Friday. The settlement calls for former athletes to receive millions in back pay and gives schools the option to distribute up to $20.5 million a year in payments to athletes for use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will review the objections before the April 7 hearing set to consider final approval of the settlement. The schools hope to clear the way for the deal to take effect starting with the next academic year.
“We don’t think there’s anything in the objections that hasn’t been known about the settlement, wasn’t raised by others at the preliminary approval process,” said the NCAA’s lead counsel on the lawsuit, Rakesh Kilaru. “We don’t think there’s anything in the objections that will give the judge reason to change her mind.”
Objections ranged from letters from soccer players to legal briefs dissecting the entire settlement. One notable objection came from LSU gymnast and influencer Livvy Dunne, who criticized the lack of input from athletes themselves.
Also on Friday, a group of 67 athletes who had opted out of the class-action settlement, including former Mississippi State running back Kylin Hill, filed their own antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and the conferences.
Plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler pointed to the more than 40,000 athletes who have filed claims for damages as evidence of the settlement’s strength. The defendants in the lawsuit are the NCAA, Big Ten, Southeastern, Big 12, Atlantic Coast, and Pac-12 conferences.
Some key topics related to the settlement include:
The Justice Department, in the final days of the Biden administration, joined lawyers and athletes in arguing that the $20.5 million cap, which represents 22% of TV and other revenue at the biggest schools, amounts to an unfair salary cap. One legal brief called the figure “totally arbitrary” and argued that setting limits on what athletes can make violates the very antitrust concerns the settlement was designed to address. Attorneys who negotiated the deal disagree, pointing out that third-party NIL payments not counting against the $20.5 million would still be allowed under the deal.
How schools navigate Title IX requirements under a new system where players can make money is not unique to the settlement. The statute aims to ensure gender equity in education, including athletics. Last-minute guidance from the Biden administration’s Education Department suggested that NIL payments from schools should be treated the same as educational benefits, which could put schools in violation of the law if they pay most of their NIL money to male athletes. Kessler said this issue should not be enough to scuttle approval of the settlement.
Hundreds of athletes have already lost roster spots on their teams as athletic departments prepare to adhere to the settlement. The NCAA views the rules that set new roster sizes while eliminating scholarship limits as a net gain for athletes, even if many rosters will diminish in size, costing walk-ons their spots.
There have also been objections over how the $2.8 billion will be distributed to former athletes who played before NIL payments were allowed starting in July 2021. Payments, out of funds from the NCAA and the conferences, have been determined via a formula that tried to gauge an athlete’s market value. Some objections have come from walk-on football players, who aren’t eligible for payments, and athletes in small sports who are receiving very small payments.
Gabe Feldman, the director of the Tulane Sports Law program, said it’s no surprise that not every party in a class-action lawsuit covering thousands of people is happy. He suggested that the lawsuit needs to be seen for what it is — antitrust litigation that remains likely to be approved on April 7.
“They don’t have the power to create an entirely new model of college sports,” Feldman said. “They don’t have the authority to do that, and that’s not what they’re trying to do. So there are a lot of gaps left to be filled in by the NCAA, and by the conferences.”
Read more:
