Judge Delays $2.8B NCAA Athlete Pay Deal, Demands Roster Cap Reforms First

Late Wednesday, Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval to the $2.8 billion settlement proposal in the House, et al v NCAA groundbreaking legal case allowing universities to share revenues with athletes. The approval, however, will only be finalized if the NCAA agrees to relax the “roster cap” rules.

Wilken wrote “The Court finds that the decision by Defendants and NCAA member schools to begin implementing the roster limits before the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement is not a valid reason for approval of the agreement in its current form despite the harm discussed above. Any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA members schools’ own making. 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”.

She continued, “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. One of the reasons for granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement is to authorize the dissemination of notice to class members so that they have the opportunity to come forward with their reactions to the agreement”.

During the hearing held earlier in April, over 100 current and future college athletes came forward (either in person or via a letter to the Court) expressing their sorrow that an opportunity to play for any one of the schools in the Power 5 conferences who are part of the suit was taken from them. Athletes competing in sports ranging from baseball to track and field were heartbroken that their competitive opportunities were arbitrarily removed.

Judge Wilken appeared very sympathetic to the athletes’ plight, commenting to both parties during the hearing that “no one likes to have things taken away from them”.

In order to address the arbitrary agreement she believes both sides made too hastily, “The Court will delay denial of final approval to permit the parties to attempt to modify the settlement agreement so that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions. One way of achieving that could be to modify the settlement agreement to ensure that no members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class who have or had a roster spot will lose it as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement. Limits could be accomplished gradually by attrition”.

“There may be other ways of mitigating the harm to members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class. A new round of notices to class members may not be required if the parties modify the settlement agreement in a manner that does not adversely affect class members”, she continued.

She has instructed both sides to meet with a court-appointed mediator, Professor Eric Green, and work towards modifications of the agreement. She also has invited several of the attorneys who represent the athletes who have been harmed by the roster cap reductions to meet with the mediator or the Magistrate Judge.

If a resolution is not found in the next 14 days, Judge Wilken has already constructed a case management schedule designed to move the more than $3 billion antitrust case to trial, likely in 2026.

Co-lead plaintiff’s attorney Steve Berman commented to NBC Sports late today “We appreciate the court’s guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case. 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.”