NCAA Settlement Faces Renewed Objections Over Roster Limits
A proposed settlement resolving three antitrust lawsuits concerning athlete compensation against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences is encountering fresh resistance. Objectors argue that even the revised version of the agreement remains fundamentally unfair to athletes. Their primary concern centers on the sport-by-sport roster limits included in the deal, which could force athletes off teams.
These roster limits were initially slated to take effect on July 1 for institutions opting into another component of the agreement: direct payment to athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). However, on April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken withheld final approval, deeming the roster arrangement "not fair." In her order, she highlighted the potential for thousands of athletes, ostensibly beneficiaries of the deal, to lose their roster spots following the current academic year.
Judge Wilken granted the involved parties a two-week window to address her concerns, suggesting a solution that would "ensure that no (athletes) who have or had a roster spot will lose it as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.”
On May 7, legal representatives for the plaintiffs, the NCAA, and the conferences presented a revised plan. Under this plan, schools would have the option to exempt athletes from the roster limits. This exemption would apply to any athlete who held a roster spot in 2024-25 and was, or would have been, removed for the 2025-26 season due to the limits. The exemption would extend for the remainder of their college careers. The revised plan also extends this option to high school seniors who were recruited or assured a roster spot at a Division I school for the 2025-26 academic year.
Despite these revisions, the core roster limits remain within the settlement. Furthermore, schools are not mandated to retain all current athletes on their rosters. NCAA lawyers have emphasized that there are "no guarantees" that athletes will secure or maintain roster spots. However, the NCAA maintains that this does not negatively impact athletes, as roster spots have always been at the discretion of coaches and institutions.
Objectors Sharpen Their Arguments
In filings submitted on May 9 and May 13, three lawyers representing objectors, granted input by Judge Wilken on the agreement’s modifications, separately contended that athletes currently on teams or promised spots should be assured that these positions are not jeopardized by the roster limits.
A group represented by Chicago-based attorney Steve Molo argued that granting schools "discretion" to provide relief is essentially a non-solution. “A settlement like this one, which vests (the schools) with ‘discretion’ to provide relief – or not – is no settlement at all,” wrote a group represented by Chicago-based attorney Steve Molo. “Indeed, numerous Objectors are hearing that schools have no intention of relaxing roster limits at all, leaving many student-athletes in the same position as under the settlement (Wilken) rejected as unfair.”
Molo’s group proposed that all athletes currently on rosters or with promised spots should not count against the limits for the duration of their college careers. They acknowledged schools’ right to cut athletes "for legitimate reasons unrelated to the roster cap, such as conduct violations and poor athletic or academic performance." However, they suggested an arbitration process to resolve disputes regarding these cuts.
Another objector lawyer, Laura Reathaford, advocated for mandatory grandfathering of current athletes and high school seniors who had "accepted an offer" to join a team in 2025-26 until their eligibility expires.
“By making grandfathering … optional, the (athletes) are still not treated equitably relative to each other and relief is not being provided to each (athlete covered by the settlement) as the law requires,” she wrote. “Instead … conflicts persist by protecting some athletes while leaving the others exposed.”
A third group of lawyers, led by Denver-based attorneys Douglas DePeppe and Robert Hinckley, endorsed the other objectors’ proposals. They also advocated for a "formal grievance" and "oversight" system.
Next Steps and Broader Context
The plaintiffs, the NCAA, and the conferences have until May 16 to respond to these objections in arguments presented to Judge Wilken.
Judge Wilken has indicated her inclination to approve the remainder of the deal, despite other objections. This suggests she is otherwise prepared to accept an agreement that distributes $2.8 billion in damages to current and former athletes – and their lawyers – over ten years. The deal also allows Division I schools to directly compensate athletes for NIL usage, subject to a per-school cap that will increase over time and be based on a percentage of certain athletics revenues.
The current dispute highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in balancing the financial interests of institutions and athletes within the evolving landscape of college sports.
