Judge threatens to deny major NCAA settlement if conditions aren’t met
The House vs. NCAA settlement is coming down to a clear condition from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken: If there is to be a settlement approved, both sides will need to tweak how new roster limits are implemented, making it so no current college athletes lose a spot as a result of the legal agreement. And if they don’t make those changes, Wilken wrote Wednesday that she will deny the settlement.
Wilken set a May 7 deadline for attorneys to meet the requirement.
On April 7, at the most recent hearing for a settlement that would resolve three major antitrust cases, Wilken asked the sides to address her concerns regarding roster limits. A week later, the attorneys declined to do so, writing in a filing that adjusting the roster limits would “upset the settled expectations, enrollment decisions, and other preparations.” Put another way: Schools have already planned their 2025-26 rosters based on the settlement’s approval.
Wilken was not moved by that argument. On Wednesday, she wrote in an order that “any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA members schools’ own making.”
The attorneys involved represent the plaintiffs, past and current athletes who would get their share of $2.8 billion in back damages; and the six defendants, including the NCAA, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Pac-12. Beyond the damages, the settlement would usher in a new economic model for college sports, allowing schools to pay athletes directly for the first time (often referred to as “revenue sharing”). And as part of that system, scholarship limits would be replaced by the roster caps, with which Wilken has taken exception.
For example, as recently as this past season, a Division I football team had 85 full scholarships to offer, though it could carry as many players as it wanted. If the settlement was approved as written, schools that opted into the system would no longer have restrictions on scholarship money for a football roster. The roster, however, would be capped at 105 players.
Wilken, concerned that current athletes could lose their spots - and many already have across sports, suggested the sides figure out a way to grandfather in athletes who have or had roster spots that they’ll lose “as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.” She wrote that “limits could be accomplished gradually by attrition.”
After the attorneys declined to address her concern earlier this month, many filed additional objections to the settlement, including a handful of athletes affected by the proposed roster limits, plus parents of affected athletes, plus lawyers representing affected athletes. Wilken appears to have been swayed by those letters.
“We appreciate the court’s guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case,” Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said in a statement Wednesday. “We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns. If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps.”
As shown by the attorneys’ first response to Wilken’s request on roster limits, many D-I schools are preparing as if revenue sharing is a go for next season. That has factored into name, image and likeness (NIL) contracts, many of which are in the seven figures because of money schools could pay into player salaries.
A denial of the settlement would create a great deal of uncertainty - and quite likely a trial.
“The fact that the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement should not have been interpreted as an indication that it was certain that the Court would grant final approval,” Wilken wrote in Wednesday’s order. “One of the factors that courts must consider when determining whether to grant final approval of a settlement agreement is ‘the reaction of the class members’ to the agreement.”