Judge Claudia Wilken has approved the final settlement in the House vs. NCAA case in a 76-page opinion released late Friday evening.
The first 39 pages are fairly cut-and-dry, with the interesting topics like filed objections beginning on page 40.
In her opinion, Wilken says that she will not address objections filed by non-class members like parents or coaches like 15-time NCAA champion swim coach Eddie Reese. That leaves her with 73 objections to respond to.
The key point is that Wilken says that the revenue sharing cap has a “reasonable basis for the compromise,” though she leaves the door open to class members being allowed to sue for claims related to the cap on the revenue pool – indicating an interpretation that this settlement doesn’t necessarily end the litigation.
In several cases, Wilken said that there wasn’t enough information or it wasn’t clear if the settlement violates antitrust law, but she also said that this doesn’t mean that the settlement isn’t valid. She did warn the conferences and the NCAA against using the settlement as an antitrust shield.
Wilken also commented on the compromise as it relates to the new NCAA roster limits, which was the biggest concern in the last round of proceedings that Wilken ordered the two sides to negotiate on further.
She specifically argued that the “designated student-athlete” provisions that allow schools to grandfather in current members of teams who would otherwise have been cut due to roster limits because it makes those student-athletes “more valuable to teams” because they allow teams to have larger rosters.
The original complaint over roster limits was that the settlement harmed some class members.
While the new agreement does not require schools to keep these designated student-athletes, many schools, like Notre Dame, have already committed to do so even before Friday’s approval. Wilken said that because current NCAA rules don’t guarantee spots for student-athletes, schools’ existing discretion to decide which student-athletes to have on their rosters maintains that discretion and does not render the settlement “unfair or unreasonable.”
Wilken also pointed to the fact that the settlement agreement offered other protections and benefits for these designated student-athletes impacted by the decision, including that athletes impacted by roster limits won’t lose their athletic scholarships.
As was the case with the roster cap, Wilken acknowledged that student-athletes were not precluded by the settlement from suing over damages arising from the roster limits.
The settlement will pay out $2.576 billion in damages over 10 years: $1.976 billion in NIL-related damages and $600 million for athletic services and pay-for-play damages. In total, over 101,000 class members submitted claims or updated info, which is about 26% of the expected eligible class.
Unpaid funds won’t return to the NCAA.
Schools may allocate up to 22% of average athletic revenue for direct athlete compensation, and there are no more NCAA-mandated scholarship limits (though schools do not have to give full scholarships to every student-athlete). The injunctive relief class includes all NCAA Division I athletes between June 15, 2020 and the end of the 10-year term through the 2034-2035 academic year. The damage relief class includes all NCAA D1 athletes from June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024.
Wilken said that the objectors did not make a good enough case that the damages had to comply with Title IX, but again that they are able to sue over Title IX issues in revenue distributions.
Plaintiff Awards
Grant House, one of six co-lead plaintiffs and the one whose name is most frequently associated with the case, will receive $125,000 under the settlement, as will the other lead plaintiffs Sedona Prince and Tymir Oliver. Others will receive smaller class awards: Nya Harrison and DeWayne Carter will receive $10,000 each, and Nicholas Solomon will receive $5,000.
Those numbers are dwarfed by the amounts requested by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, which still must go through a final approval process.
- $395.2M (20%) from NIL fund.
- $60M (10%) from pay-for-play fund.
- $20M upfront for injunctive relief work.
- Up to 1.25% of future “Pool” compensation distributed by schools.
- ~$9M in litigation expenses.
they can also apply to the court or special master “for an award of a percentage of the total amount spent by Division I member institutions under the pool for each academic year (with the percentage increasing from .75 to a maximum of 1.25%” and the right to apply for more fees and costs for “ongoing work in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Injunctive Relief Settlement.”
While the total sums are staggering, they are in line with attorney’s fees percentages for complex class cases.
The case, which spanned over 4 years, involved millions of pages of discovery and was unusual in both scale and complexity.
How valuable do you think the Designated Student Athletes will be, given that many coaches have said they welcome the lower roster limits and some schools and conferences are opting for lower rosters than the limits? For example, would the SEC allow DSAs on top of their 23 roster limit?
If he wanted 125k that badly should’ve just focused on perfecting his LinkedIn and securing a good paying entry level job
The House Class sued for lost NIL income and for revenue sharing. The part of the suit for lost NIL stems from an earlier decision that said the NCAA’s non-negotiable ownership of athletes’ NIL was illegal. That earlier suit only applied to then current athletes, so the House Class sued on behalf of then recent graduates.
The revenue sharing part argued the NCAA’s policy of banning conferences and schools from sharing revenue with athletes violated anti-trust law. When conferences distribute the massive yearly revenue (note that’s revenue not profits), schools were not allowed to share any of that directly with athletes, which was collusive and anticompettive behavior that violated anti-trust law. The House Class sued to get a piece… Read more »
What does this paragraph say/mean?
“She specifically argued that the “designated student-athlete” provisions that allow schools to grandfather in current members of teams who would otherwise have been cut due to roster limits because it makes those student-athletes “more valuable to teams” because they allow teams to have larger rosters.”
Schools can “designate” those SAs that would’ve not made the roster cuts and those “designated” SAs would then be grandfathered in for the remainder of their eligibility (thus the school can carry over the roster limit with those “designated” SAs). The school has the option to do this but doesn’t have to.
And regardless of what I consider questionable syntax, does that carry over if they go to other schools? Are they automatically granted that “protected” status? Or only if they are cut? If they enter the portal then they would certainly be more valuable because they would be “extra” swimmers that you could carry.
I feel like deep down, Grant House hates the sport of swimming. Who woulda thought this gangly kid from St. X would be here right now. Smh. A rinkydink $125k pay day for what?
$125K doesn’t seem like enough to be universally blamed for the step back Olympic sports will take but his relevance as a swimmer should at least allow him to enjoy it in anonymity.
A cool $500MM for the attorneys though? Good day for NARPs.
House will probably notice that and then use his $125k for law school tuition.
Congratulations to Grant House! It was time for the universities and their athletic departments to take back their programs. There will be tough times for athletes at first, but eventually this development is best for the future of college sports.
Grant House, a name that will live in infamy in the annals of collegiate swimming history. I can bet he will end up having a mediocre job in real life. He will then try to pivot back to swimming as a coach, haha not happening. He has burned so many bridges.
He’s one of 101,000 athletes who have joined the class, but he’ll get the blame for the NCAA failing to fix its illegal actions until the court made it fix some.
This is a cautionary tale to everyone—courts are designed to assign blame not to revamp systems to make them compliant. Fix it yourself while you can, because if you make a court do it for you, you almost certainly won’t like the result.