House V. NCAA Settlement Final Approval Motion Filed Amid Criticism

The $2.8B House v. NCAA settlement nears final approval, but critics argue its NIL cap, roster limits, and fairness raise major concerns

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Charlie Baker, President, NCAA hold a special proclamation during a press conference celebrating the 25 year anniversary of the NCAA moving its national office to Indianapolis on Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2024, at the NCAA Headquarters in Indianapolis. / Michelle Pemberton/IndyStar / USA TODAY NETWORK

The House v. NCAA settlement, a colossal $2.8 billion agreement set to transform college sports' financial landscape, has moved closer to reality. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have officially filed a motion for final approval, arguing that the response from class members has been overwhelmingly positive.

With just over 3,400 opt-outs and 73 formal objections from a cohort of nearly 390,000 athletes, they assert the numbers speak for themselves. Now, all eyes are on U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who will deliver her ruling at the much-anticipated fairness hearing on April 7.

Its authors frame the motion is framed as a landmark victory for college athletes, promising to unlock more than $20 billion in direct compensation over the next decade. Schools can share up to 22% of their annual athletic revenue with players, with an initial per-school cap of $21 million for athlete compensation.

The settlement also ensures retroactive damages for former players previously barred from profiting off their name, image, and likeness (NIL), a critical aspect that proponents argue rights past wrongs.

Yet, beneath the celebratory tone of the motion, deep concerns remain. Critics argue that the settlement’s structure merely replaces one restriction with another. While unprecedented in college sports, the revenue-sharing model is still a pre-determined cap on athlete earnings—one that was not negotiated with player input.

The previous Department of Justice raised concerns in its filing, suggesting that this cap, agreed upon by competing schools, could violate antitrust laws by restraining a genuinely open market. While the motion insists that the settlement does not provide the NCAA with legal immunity, questions persist about whether this agreement will cement another artificial restriction under the guise of reform.

One of the most contentious aspects of the settlement is the shift from scholarship limits to roster caps, a change expected to impact non-revenue sports and walk-on athletes significantly. The motion downplays the consequences, suggesting that the “enormous benefits” of the settlement far outweigh any adverse effects.

However, the trade-off is severe for athletes who rely on roster spots to access opportunities. The settlement effectively reallocates money within programs rather than expanding financial resources for all athletes. While some players benefit from direct revenue sharing, others will see their opportunities vanish completely.

Despite these criticisms, legal precedent suggests that Wilken will likely approve the settlement. As Sportico’s Michael McCann explains, “Wilken will consider those (and other) arguments, but antitrust class action settlements are usually approved. The motion filed Monday addresses these arguments by maintaining they are off base.

"For instance, with respect to roster limits, the motion suggests that relatively few athletes will lose positions versus alleged “enormous benefits of the settlement” for the class as a whole. “The move to roster limits,” the motion asserts, “was part of the overall settlement compromise, and any negative effects are dwarfed by the extraordinary benefits provided by the settlement to the Settlement Classes as a whole.”

In previous cases, such as O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA, Wilken ruled in favor of athlete compensation while still maintaining structural guardrails for the NCAA. She may request minor modifications, as she did when granting preliminary approval, but a complete rejection remains unlikely.

Even if the settlement is finalized, it will not be the final word on college athlete compensation. Nearly 350 players have opted out, and some—including former Mississippi State running back Kylin Hill—have already filed new lawsuits challenging the terms of the agreement.

Title IX concerns, employment status debates, and the broader implications of a revenue-sharing model will continue to be litigated in the coming months and years.

The House settlement is heralded as the most significant shift in college sports since the introduction of NIL. However, whether it represents real progress or a new version of unilateral NCAA control remains an open question.

The fight for athlete compensation is far from over, and the coming legal battles may ultimately determine whether this settlement is a step toward fairness or just another carefully managed concession designed to maintain the status quo.

Recommended Articles

feed