Olivia Dunne Pens Letter Objecting to NCAA’s $2.8B House Settlement

LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne formally objects to the NCAA’s $2.8B House settlement, citing transparency issues and unfair NIL compensation for athletes

LSU Tigers gymnast Olivia Dunne warms up against the Florida Gators before the meet at Exactech Arena at the Stephen C. O'Connell Center in Gainesville, FL on Friday, February 23, 2024. [Matt Pendleton/Gainesville Sun] / Matt Pendleton/Gainesville Sun / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

LSU Tigers gymnast and social media icon Olivia Dunne has formally objected to the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement, which seeks to resolve antitrust allegations and reshape how college athletes are compensated.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, Dunne criticized the proposed agreement for its lack of transparency, inequitable distribution, and exclusion of athletes from the decision-making process. As one of the NCAA’s most prominent figures, Dunne’s objections add significant weight to the growing concerns surrounding the settlement.

Dunne’s rise as a gymnast began in 2021, coinciding with the NCAA’s adoption of NIL rules. Since then, she has become a trailblazer for athletes in non-revenue sports, amassing 13.7 million social media followers and achieving an NIL valuation of $4.2 million, more than any other female college athlete ever.

Her success is an example of the untapped potential of athletes outside traditional revenue sports like football and basketball, lending credibility to her critiques of a settlement that many believe favors those programs disproportionately.

And here's a letter objecting to the House settlement filed by LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne. pic.twitter.com/t5gpLrIedj

— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) January 31, 2025

Central to Dunne’s objections is the settlement’s calculation of lost NIL opportunities. She argues that the formula fails to reflect the value athletes could have achieved if NCAA restrictions hadn’t been in place, especially for those with significant marketability.

Dunne also raised concerns about the lack of access to critical information during the decision-making process, stating, “Especially in a case where the school provided no NIL data, athletes could not upload their own data to adjust and correct their estimate without filing a claim and waiving their right to opt out of the damages class. This left the athlete to have to make a decision without accurate information.”

This lack of clarity, Dunne argues, forced athletes into making high-stakes decisions without sufficient understanding of their potential payout.

Another point of contention is the exclusion of athletes from the settlement negotiations. Dunne views this as a continuation of the NCAA’s history of sidelining athletes in matters that directly affect their financial interests. She called for greater representation, emphasizing the need for athletes to have a voice in shaping policies that impact their future.

The proposed settlement, set for final approval on April 7, would allow schools to allocate up to $20.5 million annually in NIL payments beginning with the 2025-26 academic year. While it promises to bring significant changes, objections like Dunne’s highlight the plethora of unresolved issues that could potentially derail its implementation.

Recommended Articles

feed