House NCAA Settlement Faces New Challenges with Athlete Objections: Legal Implications Explored

As the House v. NCAA settlement nears preliminary approval, the landscape of college athletics faces significant changes. The settlement seeks to allow schools to share up to $22 million starting in 2025-26, benefiting thousands of college athletes who were previously barred from NIL opportunities, revenue sharing, and video game profits.

This agreement, if certified, offers a resolution short of the $20 billion in back damages initially claimed.

The agreement has not been without controversy. Several former and current rowers from Yale, Oregon State, George Washington, and Texas have filed objections, arguing that the settlement continues to deprive athletes, particularly female athletes, of fair compensation. They claim the NCAA suppressed the value of women’s sports and suggest that the settlement merely swaps one restrictive structure for another.

Judge Claudia Wilken is set to consider preliminary approval on September 5, with the potential to reshape the framework of college sports compensation.

Rowers Joined by Fontenot in Opposition to House

The pushback against the House settlement isn’t limited to just one group. Attorneys representing plaintiffs in a separate case, focused on Ivy League schools not awarding athletic scholarships, voiced their opposition on Thursday.

On Friday, another legal challenge emerged from the Fontenot v. NCAA suit, which also deals with athlete compensation. The attorneys for the Fontenot case filed a complaint and a motion asking the court to reject the preliminary settlement approval.

The complaint argues that the House settlement falls short of compensating the athletes fairly. They claim that Fontenot’s allegations are worth over $24 billion.

The legal filing from Fontenot’s side clearly states that their counsel doesn’t oppose the idea of a comprehensive settlement. However, they insist that any settlement must be thoroughly evaluated and passionately argued by separate legal representatives for the fair pay plaintiffs.

The complaint highlights that the same plaintiffs’ counsel settled all claims at once, which they view as improper.

They argue that the valuation process for NIL claims started with the full amount sought in negotiations, whereas the fair pay claims did not undergo such an adversarial process. Instead, assumptions favorable to the defendants were made.

Crew Athletes Push Back on Compensation Rates

Crew athletes have expressed strong objections to the proposed compensation rates outlined in the NCAA’s settlement plan.

Key among their concerns is the lack of consideration for lost scholarship opportunities.

While the settlement addresses past losses from NIL (name, image, and likeness) opportunities in broadcast rights and video games, it overlooks the financial impact related to scholarships.

Lawyers representing the athletes argue that the enforcement of “fair market value” by the NCAA and Power Five conferences is a thinly veiled attempt to control athlete compensation.

According to the settlement, compensation must be “at rates and terms commensurate with that paid to similarly situated individuals.”

This, they claim, continues to suppress the potential earnings of student-athletes.

The filing from the rowers’ attorneys highlights that multiple courts have found the NCAA guilty of violating antitrust laws by capping athlete compensation.

They argue that despite these rulings, the NCAA persists in its efforts to control and lower the earnings of student-athletes.

Moreover, the complaint suggests that the House v. NCAA settlement serves as a strategic move by the NCAA and Power Five conferences to limit the fair employment compensation claims of athletes.

This settlement, they argue, comes at a significant discount for the governing bodies involved.

Concerns over employment status remain central to the NCAA’s agenda.

Recently, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce advanced the Protecting Student Athlete’s Economic Freedom Act.

This bill aims to establish that athletes are not considered employees of their respective institutions, conferences, or associations.

The rowers view this legislative move as potentially reducing the value of claims that could be made by the athletes.

They stress that settling the claims now for $600 million leaves substantial value unaddressed, as per their filing.