• Judge Claudia Wilken has delayed her decision on whether to approve the House vs. NCAA settlement. On Monday, she heard objections to the deal from lawyers and students.
• If approved, the settlement would change how college athletics is run, allowing schools to pay players directly from an annual $22.5 million pool.
• It would also establish payments to former athletes who played after 2016 and were not paid. The settlement sets aside $2.8 billion for those claims which are approaching 120,000.

Full Story

On Monday, April 7, Judge Claudia Wilken heard objections to an anti-trust settlement between student-athletes and the NCAA that could change the way college sports operate. If the judge approves the settlement in the next couple of weeks, schools will start paying athletes directly for the first time.

What does the House vs. NCAA settlement do?

The House vs. NCAA settlement establishes a pool of money for each school. It will initially start at $22.5 million per year and be disbursed among student-athletes. The money comes from sources like media rights, ticket sales, concessions, apparel and sponsorships.

That $22.5 million will increase by 4% a year over the next decade and be distributed to athletes by the universities as they see fit. The money is in addition to scholarships, third-party Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) payments, and other current benefits. As part of the deal, each sport will have roster limits, which coaches like Kansas State’s Chris Klieman are generally not in favor of.

“We got to remove a lot of kids from the program, and it sucks, I’ll be honest with you,” Klieman said. “There’s a lot of kids that want to be here, want to stay here, that we can’t have in the program, and kids that are paying their way, kids that have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears in the place. Kids are invested academically, now those kids got to make a choice.”

Does the settlement involve the transfer portal?

The settlement does not address other issues, like the poaching of athletes through the transfer portal. The biggest schools will still use outside “collectives” to sweeten the payments with additional NIL deals. Nebraska coach Matt Ruhle recently described a common scenario in which players chase more money elsewhere.

“What I don’t want is guys playing at four colleges in four years,” Ruhle said. “’Hey, I’m the highest bidder. Now I’m the highest bidder.’ The one thing in football is the desperate team sets the market, and so if a desperate team comes in and they’re trying to steal you away from me, and ‘Hey, I’ll give you $100,000 more.’ But it’s not a good situation. There has to be some guardrails.”

What are the biggest objections to the settlement?

Several legal objections to the settlement also exist, many of which the judge heard during Monday’s testimony.

One of the biggest concerns involves gender equity. Since the money comes from schools, some believe it should be subject to Title IX laws and should be equally distributed among men and women in sports. As it currently stands, football would get the majority of the settlement money.

Objectors, like LSU gymnast and influencer Livvy Dunne, asked the judge why there should be a $22.5 million compensation limit. The issue of a roster size cap was also a big talking point. Some believe the cap is unfair to students who want to pay their own way, such as “walk-ons.”

What are college leaders saying about the settlement?

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, who runs the most powerful conference in college sports, would like Congress to pass legislation that sets standards and hopes all schools will come together to work it out regardless of the court’s decision.

As opposed to letting each state draft its own laws, Sankey said, “We’re going to come together to figure out the best structure, and we’re going to do it with the best legal counsel.”

Sankey went on to add, “Our focus needs to be on implementation of a settlement. There’s going to be plenty of criticism –– we need to deal with the criticism where appropriate, adjust where we need to, but continue to adapt to a modern set of expectations.”

Another aspect of the settlement involves payments to former athletes dating back to 2016. The deal stipulates $2.8 billion to be set aside and distributed during a 10-year window to those who file a claim. So far, more than 118,000 former athletes have filed.

The judge could rule on the settlement in the next couple of weeks. If she approves it, the rules could go into effect July 1, changing the college sports landscape.

Lawyers will also begin preparing for the slew of lawsuits that will doubtlessly follow, driven by more than 380 plaintiffs who opted out of the class-action suit.