Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Defend Proposed NCAA Athlete-Compensation Settlement Amid Objections
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the landmark proposed multi-billion-dollar settlements concerning three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Power Five conferences have filed a comprehensive court submission addressing a multitude of objections to the final approval of the deal.
The plaintiffs’ legal team presented a robust defense of the proposed settlement, arguing that it is in the best interests of current and former college athletes, despite concerns raised by objectors. The submission came ahead of a final-approval hearing scheduled for April 7 before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the agreements.
The proposed settlements encompass nearly $2.8 billion in damages slated for distribution to current and former athletes over a 10-year period. Moreover, the agreements would pave the way for Division I schools to directly compensate athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) starting in the 2025-26 academic year, subject to a per-school cap based on a percentage of certain athletics revenues.
Objections and Opt-Outs
In January, the court received over 70 objections, including those submitted by a January 31 deadline that were not officially entered into the court record until several weeks later. Additionally, nearly 350 current or former athletes who were eligible to participate in the proposed settlement have opted out, leading to the filing of several new lawsuits against the NCAA.
A significant number of objections focused on the sport-by-sport roster limits that would be imposed on schools participating in the settlement and engaging in NIL deals with their athletes. Objectors argue that these limits are likely to result in the removal of hundreds, if not thousands, of walk-on athletes from Division I teams.
However, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the roster limits are a necessary component of the overall settlement, which also includes the elimination of sport-by-sport scholarship limits currently in place for all NCAA Division I schools. They contend that the elimination of scholarship limits will provide greater financial opportunities for athletes and offset any potential negative impact of the roster limits.
Other objections raised concerns that the per-school cap on NIL payments to athletes would constitute another antitrust violation, that the damages claims are being settled for an insufficient amount, and that the allocation of damages payments discriminates against female athletes and could lead to future Title IX violations as schools determine how to allocate NIL payments.
Plaintiffs’ Defense
The plaintiffs’ lawyers acknowledged that the settlement may not address every concern of every class member, stating that "no class action settlement could meet that test." They emphasized that any settlement is inherently a compromise and that the ultimate determination is whether the settlement, viewed as a whole, is in the best interests of the class. They asserted that the proposed settlement "demonstrably is."
The plaintiffs’ legal team highlighted the significance of the damages settlement, describing it as "one of the largest in antitrust history" and a "monumental recovery." They also emphasized the transformative nature of the arrangement allowing athletes to be paid directly by their schools in a form of revenue sharing, projecting that it would "deliver an additional $20 billion or more in value to college athletes" over the next 10 years.
They also pointed out that more than 73,000 of a possible total of 390,000 former and current athletes have filed valid claims since a claims website became available. The plaintiffs’ lawyers juxtaposed this number with the number of objections and opt-outs, arguing that those who object should simply opt out rather than deny final approval for everyone else.
Request to Deny Delay
The plaintiffs’ lawyers also requested that Judge Wilken deny any request to delay the start of the new pay system for athletes pending the outcome of any potential appeals of a ruling in favor of final approval. They argued that such a delay would "irreparably harm tens of thousands of athletes."
Attorneys’ Fees
The plaintiffs’ lawyers noted that no objections have been filed regarding their motion for nearly $525 million in fees and costs and for the right to apply annually to a judge or special master for additional amounts that could total roughly another $250 million. They argued that the absence of such objections further indicates the strength of the settlement obtained.
The $775 million total, like the case’s other amounts, would be mostly spread over 10 years.
Conclusion
The plaintiffs’ lawyers have mounted a vigorous defense of the proposed NCAA athlete-compensation settlements, arguing that they represent a significant victory for current and former college athletes. They maintain that the agreements are in the best interests of the class as a whole, despite the objections raised by some individuals. Judge Wilken’s decision on final approval will have a profound impact on the future of college sports and the financial well-being of student-athletes.
