James Sutherland and Sophie Kaufman contributed to this report.
The final approval hearing for the House v. NCAA settlement will be held today in Oakland’s federal courthouse, with the proceedings set to begin at 10 am Pacific Time (1 pm ET) and run the course of the day.
The hearing will be led by Judge Claudia Wilken, who issued an order last month with details about today’s proceedings, including reiterating that she cannot change the terms of the settlement agreement today, she either grants final approval or denies it.
There is a third option, however, as Judge Wilken could tell attorneys she is inclined to grant final approval if certain changes are made, which would delay the timeline for approval.
If final approval is denied, which is said to be the least likely option, they would return to the docket and could remain in court for years without a settlement.
There will be 14 objectors speaking in today’s hearing, including LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, Michelle Roberts, the former executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, and the United States Department of Justice.
Full List of Objectors:
- Objectors represented by Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP.
- Objector represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC.
- Objectors represented by Michael P. Lehmann of Hausfeld LLP.
- Objector represented by Laura Reathaford of Lathrop GPM.
- Objectors represented by Patrick A. Bradford of Bradford Edwards LLP.
- Objectors represented by Alex R. Straus of Milberg LLP.
- Objector represented by Caroline G. McGlamry of Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood PC.
- Objectors represented by Leigh Ernst Friestedt.
- Objectors represented by Michelle Roberts.
- Objector the United States.
- Objector Gannon Flynn.
- Objector Gracelyn Laudermilch.
- Objector Benjamin Burr-Kirven.
- Objector Olivia Dunne.
If approved, the settlement would see institutions be permitted to pay student-athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL), with each school able to allocate up to $20.5 million annually for athlete compensation.
The settlement also includes $2.78 billion in back pay damages to be paid out to student-athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 for lost NIL opportunities.
Also a part of the settlement is the implementation of roster limits, which would replace traditional scholarship limits.
Lead plaintiff Grant House recently his support for the Cal Poly swim & dive program after the team was cut last month. House said swim programs getting cut, or being threatened to be cut, are decisions being made by athletics departments and that the settlement is not the cause.
View this post on Instagram
Follow along for live updates beginning at 10 am PT/1 pm ET below.
FINAL APPROVAL HEARING LIVE UPDATES
10:30 am PT – Judge Wilken is in attendance and “already appears to be against some of the objection claims,” Front Office Sports‘ Amanda Christovich reports.
Judge Claudia Wilken is here. She already appears to be against some of the objection claims.
She’s going over some of objections. She says that this isn’t a Title IX case, it’s an antitrust case.
And on collective bargaining: “It may be a great idea…that just isn’t part of…
— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) April 7, 2025
Judge Wilken said she’s “not planning on ruling from the bench today,” meaning she’ll likely take in all of the information during the session and make a written order later rather than issuing an immediate decision in the courtroom.
Plaintiff counsel Steve Berman said: “Congress is the risk. I can guarantee you that if the settlement’s not approved, (the NCAA is) going to go to Congress and they’re going to say we now have $10B in House liability…we’ve got all these cases,” reports Christovich. “We can’t handle it. And they’re going to ask for immunity.”
11:00 am PT – Judge Wilken’s biggest issue with the settlement appears to be the fact that it incorporates future athletes who are not currently in college. She mentioned the “10-year-old playing kickball” as an example of a young future student-athlete who will be impacted by the settlement but has no say.
Judge Wilken asked if there should be a separate class of athlete who would be harmed by the settlement, specifically those who lost scholarship opportunities or roster spots because of the new roster limits. The NCAA lawyer disagreed.
Judge Wilken has suggested the idea of grandfathering or phasing in roster limits, which would alleviate some of the stress placed on swim teams and student-athletes for next season.
Wilken just again suggested an “interim period” or a grandfathering/phasing-in period for the roster limits.
It very much appears she’s heading this direction as a solution to the roster issues. https://t.co/otBZgkxnoc
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) April 7, 2025
11:30 am PT – Lawyer Steve Molo, who represents law firm MoloLamkin LLP that was helping student-athletes file their objections against the settlement, is the first objector to speak.
Molo says he is “not here to blow up the settlement, but it needs to be fair,” according to USA Today.
Molo argues that it isn’t fair, pointing to roster limits, and says that in a free market, schools should have as many players as they want.
Judge Wilken asks Molo if he wants scholarship limits or roster limits, and he says neither.
Judge Wilken again goes to the potential of a phase-in period for roster limits, thinking that the limits could be an antitrust violation as it relates to current athletes, as opposed to future athletes who would know these rules.
The second objector is a group represented by Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the Ed O’Bannon case which was also overseen by Judge Wilken.
Hausfeld argues against the cap that would be placed on school’s NIL/revenue-sharing payments to athletes, arguing that the 22% cap is unreasonable because it creates a ceiling on athlete payments but no floor.
The general sentiment from Hausfeld’s arguments was that it was confusing for many, including Judge Wilken.
The points being made by Michael Hausfeld right now are… a little confusing. Not just to me, but to Judge Wilken as well. In case anyone’s wondering why there aren’t a whole lot of updates from anyone right now.
— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) April 7, 2025
12:00 pm PT – Attorney Laura Reathaford, who says she is representing her daughter’s objection to the settlement, refers to roster limits as a “harm argument,” claiming that the settlement creates harm rather than preventing it.
Judge Wilken says that in a case involving 390,000 people, it’s difficult to have a situation where no one is harmed. Reathaford responds by citing previous cases she says back up her contention that a large class-action case doesn’t mean there can be harm to some of the parties.
Laura Reathaford making great points here. There’s a difference between current and past athletes — past athletes have nothing to lose, but with the roster limits some of the current athletes do and some were scared to come forward. Not sure Judge Wilken is buying it, but still…
— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) April 7, 2025
After Judge Wilken asks for a solution, Reathaford says she likes the “grandfathering” in idea of roster limits mentioned earlier in the hearing.
Judge Wilken calls for a 10-minute recess. When the hearing resumes, she’ll call on athletes who are objecting and appearing on their own without a lawyer.
Key updates from the first few hours:
The House settlement hearing is on lunch break two hours into what will likely be a six to seven hour proceeding.
Most interesting notes from Judge Claudia Wilken: pic.twitter.com/Q60sFxh9fb
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) April 7, 2025
12:30 pm PT – Coming out of the brief recess, LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne speaks, objecting to the back-pay distribution in the settlement that would mostly go to male student-athletes.
Dunne said her NIL payment estimate was much lower than her actual NIL earnings.
“This settlement uses old logic to calculate modern value, Dunne told Wilken, according to LSU football writer Wilson Alexander.
LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, who has profited off NIL, is objecting in the House settlement hearing now.
“This settlement doesn’t come close to recognizing the value I lost.” She says that every year’s NIL earnings “projections have underestimated my actual earnings”
— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) April 7, 2025
1:00 pm PT – The last few speakers before the lunch break, courtesy of reporting from Tulane Sports Law professor Gabe Feldman:
- Patrick Bradford on behalf of “certain African American former D1 athletes,” claiming that the notice of the settlement was inadequate “because there was no Black-specific media marketing.”
- Leigh Ernst Friestedt, representing four female student-athletes, raises objections under Title IX, saying men will earn $2.4 billion from the settlement and women will earn $100 million. Judge Wilken says that the amount men were harmed under antitrust law.
- Richard Ford is told by Judge Wilken that he shouldn’t be there at all because he’s not representing any class members. Ford raises the issue that the settlement will limit lobbying activity for class members or plaintiff lawyers against the NCAA on Capitol Hill.
1 hour lunch break (for the hearing, not me– I already ate lunch). Sedona Prince and Grant House introduce themselves to Judge Wilken at the beginning of the break. (Judge Wilken is looking for a charger for her cell phone if anyone can help).
— Gabe Feldman (@SportsLawGuy) April 7, 2025
2:30 pm PT — Judge Wilken narrows focus to people not yet in college
- Andrew Ellis, the lawyer for another objection group, began his presentation but Judge Wilken redirected him toward the issue of the settlement’s legality as it pertains to future college athletes. The proposed term of the settlement is 10 years, thus affecting thousands of student-athletes who aren’t yet in college or even committed. “Can you have a class of future people who aren’t known yet,” Christovich reports Wilken asking. “Can they be understood to release claims for things that haven’t happened yet?”
- Ellis responds to Judge Wilken’s line of questioning by saying that in his opinion, the only way to achieve this would be for a separate set of lawyers to represent those future student-athletes’ interests. This would be different than the current situation, in which the plantiffs’ lawyers represent past, present, and future college athletes.
Judge Wilken: “Can you have a class of future people who aren’t known yet? … Can they be understood to release claims for things that haven’t happened yet?”
Of this issue, she asks: “Is that the death knell?”
— Amanda Christovich (@achristovichh) April 7, 2025
2:50 pm PT — The scheduled presentations by lawyers and objectors are complete. The hearing shifts to Judge Wilken’s questions, which she may direct to any party.
3:30 pm PT — Judge Wilken began by asking about the ramifications of approving two of the three settlements–Hubbard and Carter–and delaying the House settlement, which is the one with the most objections attached.
- NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru responds that the three cases are intertwined and cannot be settled individually.
- Willken then continued her questions by returning to her line of questioning about the future college athletes. Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reports that Jeff Kessler, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, spent 20 minutes “arguing in support of Wilken’s biggest issue with the settlement: that future athletes are bound to the deal and cannot bring legal claims. Wilken even suggested not certifying future athletes but ‘starting a new class’ each year.”
Dellenger further shared his view on the mood in the room:
If the NCAA and conferences felt good about the first five hours of this hearing, things have, perhaps, changed.
Judge Wilken sees enough objections/issues with House that she suggested splitting the three cases – House, Hubbard, Carter – to be settled individually. Interesting.
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) April 7, 2025
4:10 pm PT — After a 10 minute break, we are now into the final hour of the hearing for the day. Shortly before the break, Judge Wilken raised two suggestions. First, phasing in roster limits by grandfathering in current athletes on rosters. Second, excluding future athletes from the settlement by creating a “new class” each year, which was also raised by Kessler.
- USA Today reports that Willken suggested NCAA lawyer Rakesh Kilaru repond to the roster limits point by saying “‘I’ll talk to my client and get back to you.’” Instead, Kilaru pushed back, arguing that roster limits are part of the overall settlement and the issue today is whether the “‘overall settlement is reasonable.’” He continued, arguing the roster limits/end of scholarship caps benefits athletes by increasing competition and opportunity. He ended by saying roster limits affect “‘a small number of folks compared to the ‘hundreds of thousands’ covered by the settlement.”
- Kilaru also takes issue with the “new class” each year proposal: “We need the 10 years [of future athletes included in the settlement class] or there will not be stability and there will not be a deal.”
4:30 pm PT — The conversation shifts to Wilken’s concerns about NIL and third-party deals
- Judge Wilken says she needs “pro-competitive justification” for the settlement’s proposed review process for athletes’ NIL deals that are worth more than $600. The proposed settlement sets up an evaluation system by the NCAA and the conferences. Judge Wilken is interested in how this would promote competition for athetes’ NIL services and how it would protect athletes.
- Judge Wilken also raises that “there have been sories about pepole being promised [compensation] by a booster. Go to Florida and you get $100,000 and you go to Florida and you don’t get $100,000.
The issue of state laws contradicting the settlement was also brought up. Judge Wilken suggests the NCAA “kick out” schools not abiding their regulations though the NCAA is a voluntary membership organization.
A handful of states have blocked the NCAA from enforcing NIL-related rules. Sportico states “this conflict is likely to trigger litigation in those states when an NIL deal is blocked on account of being deemed pay-for-play. This could lead to even more time in court as the athlete could seek an injunction arguing the NCAA is violating state law. That could prompt the NCAA to argue state law violates the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
However, this domino effect is not before Wilken in this case.
4:45 pm PT – The hearing is now over.
As she said earlier in the day, Judge Wilken did not grant final approval.
Instead, she orders attorneys to “fix” some of the issues she raised, namely roster limits and future athletes’ inclusion in the settlement. USA Today quotes Wilken as saying, “See what you can do about all these issues. Basically, I think it’s a good settlement ‒ don’t quote me on that ‒ but it is worth pursuing (how) to fix them.”
Yahoo Sports’ Dellenger reports outside the courthouse Steve Berman hopes the settlement will be approved within three weeks after Wilken’s recommended changes are made. Attorneys have one week to respond to these recommendations. Then, objectors would have a day to respond to the proposed changes. NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru told Dellenger he doesn’t expect any delay to the July 1 implementation date.
The final House settlement hearing is over.
The gist: Judge Claudia Wilken gave indication that she’d approve the NCAA’s House settlement if changes are made to roster limits (possibly phasing them in) and the inclusion of future athletes in the class (tweaking language).
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) April 7, 2025
After the settlement heading ended, the NCAA released the following statement on its social media accounts:
Statement on settlement hearing. pic.twitter.com/xfsxUvikAl
— NCAA News (@NCAA_PR) April 7, 2025
I also feel a 30 roster is fine, diamonds in the rough can be found..the SEC lowering it to 22 is horrible for everyone..coaches and athletes..so even if the judge amends roster limits, the SEC can still stay at 22? Or will they raise the number?
Answer to all concerns about cutting: NCAA mandates offering specific programs/funding percentage (and/or raise the number of programs)
If all the schools are required to offer the same programs/funding percentage (but not necessarily spend the same total amount), including those that don’t produce revenue, problem solved. Level playing field. Sorry AD, you can no longer cut sports X, Y or Z to free up more dough for football and basketball.
Percentage-based allows schools with less money to spend less money. But nope, can’t prop up the ticket sports at the expense of the non-ticket sports.
Regardless of whether this is a good idea, neither the NCAA nor the conferences would even consider it.
I think there will be more lawsuits based on athletes being cut, wanting to go back, but not being allowed back. They went in the portal, which gave schools the ability to end their scholarships.
Schools have already began moving funds from swim and dive to football, I dont see them moving those resources being moved back to allow people to be grandfathered.
What about Virginia diving? Are those divers that did not graduate now to continue diving and be grandfathered in? I dont see that happening, but there is now a case to be made in court.
A lot of the swimmers and divers that have now transferred are going to want their spot and scholarships back, it… Read more »
Schools could cut kids before any of this House lawsuit stuff started. Today is no different. Those spots are gone
I dont think you realize how hard it is to actually cut someone on scholarship, it’s almost impossible to cut them, and another to get the scholarship back if they are cut (being cut and losing scholarship are different things). In terms of roster spots, with the way things stand, someone on scholarship counts towards your roster limit, even if you cut them.
And with the events going on with this lawsuit, it is an entirely different scenario and gives those athletes grounds for recourse
UVA didn’t expressly cut diving bc of a roster max. They just cut diving. It’s gone.
They did cut it due to the settlement and shifting resources, which is what this settlement allows schools to do.
All UVA ever needed was approval of the AD.
Grandfathering in roster limits would be wonderful news for upperclassmen. I’ve seen multiple Juniors and Seniors cut, and many of them have no intention of entering the portal or leaving their school. As their scholarships are often guaranteed, the cost of carrying them on the roster is no different than cutting them. Phased in roster reductions will allow these kids to complete their dream and it won’t harm the program, conferences or NCAA in any way.
I want that to be true, but I don’t agree that the “cost of carrying them on the roster” is just the cost of their scholarship. There are many other costs, both real and opportunity. Grandfathering is the way it should have always been done, and hopefully they do give programs the chance to do this the right way. Unfortunately, though, I think the damage has already been done for many swimmers.
I would guess that 95% of those athletes would remain cut.
It would protect kids moving forward. The cuts have been devastating. Ideally grandfathering in while late to implement for those who have been affected this year already, would prevent more rounds of massive cuts in the next few years.
Feels kind of like a solution in search of a problem.
If we agree that it’s too late for current swimmers and recruits who have already lost their spots, why would they grandfather in roster caps to protect 2027s who have not yet committed to schools? I would have loved for them to grandfather in the cuts 6 months ago, but it feels to me like that ship has sailed.
I’ve said this elsewhere, but unless they mandate that programs make larger rosters, I don’t think we’d see a great re-expansion of most programs. Most of the Power 5 coaches I talk to like a 30 person cap, or lower. Most don’t like the SEC’s 22 cap for men, but… Read more »
While athletes are being removed from rosters, coaches are too starting to be let go under budgetary constraints. 5th or 6th assistant coaches, and even associate head coaches of P4 programs as well. Not looking good for swimming as a whole
Exactly. Our swimmers P4 team let two great coaches go already.
Timing of this kinda sucks, ncaa coaches (especially SEC) had to already make cuts anticipating this case to pass as projected and to align with portal times. Seems a little late to be “grandfathered” in when already sorting out other options…
There were some wild turns in that last hour or so. This isn’t going to be settled anytime soon.
So, if current athletes are grandfathered and roster limits are thrown out, does that allow current people in the portal to go back to their original school?
Athletes in the portal have always had the ability to return to their original schools.
That’s true if you still have a spot to return to. Many kids have already been cut. I think Swimdude is asking if kids cut due to roster size limits would get their spot back. My guess would be that that ship has already sailed.