OAKLAND, Calif. — Attorneys defending a monumental settlement aimed at compensating college athletes clashed with opponents last week, dismissing their critiques as unfounded. The litigation centers around charges that the NCAA and five major athletic conferences violated antitrust laws, potentially costing athletes substantial earnings.
The proposed agreement, if sanctioned, would see nearly $2.8 billion distributed to current and former athletes across a decade. A significant feature of the settlement would permit Division I schools to compensate athletes for their name, image, and likeness (NIL), with payments guided by a cap that is intended to grow in tandem with specific athletic revenues.
The debate intensified ahead of a critical hearing for preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, scheduled for Sept. 5. Supporters of the settlement argue that the terms fairly reflect the compensation athletes could have expected after a lengthy trial, while avoiding uncertain outcomes and extensive litigation.
Some opponents, however, claim the settlement undervalues athletes’ claims, proposes another unlawful cap on compensation, and discriminates against female athletes. Furthermore, issues were raised regarding the proposed fee arrangements for the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
In response to these critiques, the plaintiffs’ attorneys reiterated that the settlement was structured to mirror potential trial outcomes, characterizing the opposition’s arguments as “frivolous.” They emphasized amendments to the notifications intended for affected athletes, ensuring that claims associated with Ivy League schools, which do not offer athletic scholarships, would remain untouched by this settlement. Likewise, they assured that another ongoing lawsuit considering athletes as school employees under federal law would also remain unaffected.
The settlement includes a provision for attorneys to request up to $495.2 million in fees from the allocated damages, a point that has sparked further contention. Enhancing their defense, attorneys shared insights from mediation sessions with Eric Green, who declared that financial and injunctive components were negotiated separately to ensure fairness, and attorney fees were discussed only after the settlement’s outlines were firmly in place.
Settlement supporters highlight the incremental increase in athlete compensation through NIL payments, potentially reaching up to $22 million directly from each Division I school over time. They argue this arrangement will enhance the bargaining power of athletes, especially if collective bargaining becomes a future possibility.
Yet, dissent remains, especially surrounding how the settlement values the athletes’ claims. Some opponents’ economic consultants peg the value of a segment of the damages at $24.3 billion, starkly contrasting with the $600 million settlement figure for that portion. Critics label this estimation methodology as flawed and not reflective of actual athlete-generated revenues.
In a rebuttal to the objections, Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, criticized the opposing economic analyses and intentions, suggesting they were aimed at disrupting a forward-moving settlement that promises significant changes in college athletics compensation structures.
Controversy also brews over the aspect of the settlement related to female athletes, with some pointing to a lack of fair consideration for women’s sports in the revenue-driven model that historically benefits male-dominated sports like football and basketball. Plaintiffs maintain that claims of gender discrimination should be addressed in a different legal context, underscoring the current settlement’s focus on addressing antitrust violations within existing frameworks.
As the hearing approaches, the college sports community watches closely, recognizing that the outcome could redefine the economic landscape for NCAA athletes and potentially set a precedent for future compensation negotiations and legal challenges within collegiate sports.