A PYMNTS Company

Athletes File New Objections to NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement Proposal

By  |  May 15, 2025

In a growing legal dispute over its proposed $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, the NCAA is encountering fresh objections from athletes and their legal representatives who argue the deal does not adequately protect student-athletes from losing places on college sports teams.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    According to Bloomberg, the proposed agreement, which aims to resolve longstanding claims about restrictions on athlete compensation, has drawn criticism for failing to provide firm safeguards for those athletes who may be cut from team rosters as a result of new limitations. The issue of roster protection has become a central point of contention in the NCAA’s effort to secure final approval of the deal.

    On Tuesday, attorney Robert B. Hinckley Jr., representing objectors Madeline Berg and Emma Lykins—both former swimmers at Ohio University—filed a formal objection in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Hinckley criticized the NCAA’s revisions as insufficient, stating that the updated proposal offers only a vague “opportunity” rather than a guarantee for affected athletes to regain or maintain their roster spots.

    Per Bloomberg, Hinckley wrote in the court filing that the NCAA’s approach represents a “non-solution,” offering little more than “cold comfort” to the thousands of athletes who stand to be impacted. He also warned that without enforceable protections, schools will have little incentive to reinstate cut athletes or prevent further cuts in the future.

    The NCAA had previously argued that firm roster guarantees would be unworkable, citing the risk of opening the door to unlimited scholarships. However, last month, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken cautioned the organization that unless protections for athletes currently on rosters were strengthened, the case could proceed to trial.

    Related: NCAA’s $49.3 Million Settlement Over Unpaid Baseball Coaches Gets Preliminary Green Light

    In response, the NCAA submitted revised terms indicating that some athletes would be spared from cuts, while retaining the discretion for schools to make roster decisions based on performance, academic standing, or disciplinary reasons.

    Nonetheless, objectors remain unconvinced. Hinckley has called for the introduction of a formal grievance mechanism that would allow athletes to challenge decisions related to roster removals. His filing contends that many institutions are likely to continue with planned roster reductions despite the changes, undermining the intent of the settlement.

    A separate objection was lodged by attorney Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP, who also represents athletes challenging the proposed deal. In a May 9 filing, Molo asserted that many athletes and families are being told by universities that no changes to roster policies are forthcoming, adding that the defendants’ unwillingness to adopt straightforward solutions is “stunning.”

    A third objection was submitted by Laura Reathaford of Lathrop GPM LLP, representing her daughter, Emma Reathaford, a gymnast at Temple University. The challenge further underscores the growing resistance among athletes and families who feel left out of the decision-making process.

    Source: Bloomberg