Objections Raised Against Landmark $2.7 Billion NCAA Settlement

Three groups representing current and former U.S. college athletes have filed objections to a groundbreaking $2.7 billion settlement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The proposed settlement would allow schools to directly pay student athletes for the first time, a significant shift in the landscape of college sports. The groups have urged U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California, to deny preliminary approval of the settlement.

Last week, the objections were lodged in federal court, with the opponents claiming that the settlement unfairly disadvantages certain groups of athletes. According to Reuters, one group argued that the agreement treats women athletes less favorably compared to their male counterparts. The other two groups contended that the settlement would allow the NCAA to evade other critical antitrust claims, potentially limiting future legal recourse for athletes.

Concerns Over Impact on Future Antitrust Claims

The settlement, which was submitted to the court last month, aims to resolve three lawsuits that alleged the NCAA’s prohibition on payments to athletes violated U.S. antitrust law. These lawsuits focused on compensation for the commercial use of athletes’ names, images and likenesses (NIL), payment for athletic service and restrictions on payments tied to academic achievements. The NCAA has consistently denied any wrongdoing in these cases.

Attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs, dismissed the objections as baseless. Per Reuters, Kessler stated, “The settlement stands as one of the largest damages payments in antitrust history and a transformation of college sports that will benefit generations of athletes to come.” A preliminary hearing on the settlement is scheduled for September 5.

Related: The NCAA Faces New Antitrust Suit

One of the objections, filed by the law firm MoloLamken, claimed that the settlement structure “vastly” favors male athletes, particularly those involved in football and basketball. Meanwhile, law firms Berger Montague and Freedman Normand Friedland argued that the settlement could jeopardize their ongoing antitrust case against the NCAA, which represents students from Ivy League schools like Yale and Harvard who allege they were denied athletic scholarships and compensation.

Additionally, the law firm Korein Tillery, which has other pending lawsuits against the NCAA, argued that the settlement potentially shortchanges athletes by billions of dollars. Their filing asserted that the agreement “allows the NCAA to check multiple items off its litigation wish list, while creating a byzantine system to insulate it from future lawsuits.”

The case, known as In Re: Collegiate Athlete NIL Litigation, is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the case number 4:20-cv-03919-CW.

Source: Reuters