The proposed House v. NCAA settlement received preliminary approval from Judge Claudia Wilken on Monday, moving the landmark case one step closer to finalizing a new financial model in college sports.
The approval comes one month after Wilken sent the settlement parties “back to the drawing board” during a preliminary hearing in which she called into question how the deal would limit third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) payments from boosters.
Lawyers representing both sides filed a slightly-revised version of the settlement terms on Sept. 26 which aimed to clarify the term “booster” and what specifically constitutes the pay-for-play incentives the NCAA is trying to eliminate as part of the settlement, according to The Athletic.
The revised proposal says that “enforcement authority over third-party NIL deals would no longer extend to all third parties…or the broadly defined term ‘boosters'” and would instead focus on a “narrower group of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools,” according to The Athletic.
Wilken reportedly didn’t provide any additional commentary or reasoning on why she granted preliminary approval.
Judge Claudia Wilken has preliminarily approved the House v. NCAA settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
If ultimately approved, schools will be allowed to share $22 million in rev. share with athletes.
More: https://t.co/BhCCgwXHW0 pic.twitter.com/gSqqEgLDdb
— On3 NIL (@On3NIL) October 7, 2024
The NCAA and Power Conferences agreed to the 10-year settlement in May, which will pay athletes $2.7 billion in back-pay damages. They also came to terms on a revenue-sharing agreement that would allow schools to share $20-23 million annually in revenue to athletes.
The case was originally filed in 2020 with former Arizona State swimmer Grant House serving as the lead plaintiff.
Although Wilken granting preliminary approval is a step forward, the settlement process remains ongoing. The process of notifying current and former athletes of the terms and claims procedures will begin on Oct. 18, and those who would be covered by the agreement can object or opt out by Jan. 31, 2025.
The final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025.
There is concern, however, that more legal appeals will arise given the bumpy road this settlement has had in recent months. In August, lawyers representing three groups of athletes filed oppositions to preliminary approval, and after the slightly-revised version of the settlement terms was filed late last month, another group of athletes objected to it, USA Today reported.
If everything goes smoothly and final approval is granted, direct revenue sharing between schools will be implemented in July 2025.
If rosters are going to be capped abs current swimmers cut, at what point do we limit international swimmers? With pressure on NCAA coaches to win at all costs, D1 swimming is going to turn into the European league. Team USA was not dominant in Paris; international swimmers wearing American university sweatshirts were. At one point do we build OUR team? Limit to 2 swimmers per team?
Can current NCAA swimmers band together to refuse payment? Former NCAA swimmers could join, all with a unified goal: PROTECT AND PRESERVE COLLEGE SWIMMING. Work through team captains, would take 10 minutes for current team and a week to get a target % of former swimmers.
Again, we knew this was going to eventually happen. But the fact a swimmer was the catalyst is what kills me.
This will open a can of worms. Hopefully the athletes succeed in the end.
I think we need to honor Grant House as a hero. This will cut the fat, get rid of useless and corrupt administrators, and streamline the sport and make swimming better.
Yes the door is wide open for famously not corrupt and meedling private equity firms to participate
As is usual with class action settlements, this whole case is driven by attorneys. They will get 20 to 40% of the settlement. I don’t see how this settlement can proceed without college athletes having a union that represents their interest. The plaintiff attorneys certainly don’t represent the students interest. The real fault for all of this lies at the feet of the totally corrupt and incompetent NCAA.
I agree with you. I’m not an attorney, so I don’t understand the intricacies of class action lawsuits, but I have a hard time believing that this settles it once and for all.
The door has been opened, so I will jump in. I have been told by a reliable source that Grant House is suing his attorneys as he will not be receiving a larger cut of the settlement as advertised and promised. Maybe SwimSwam can do some digging?
In class actions, there are usually “class representatives,” who have to actually participate in the suit and serve as a stand-in for all the class members. Sometimes it’s a lot of time and work. Class representatives usually get an extra fee as part of the settlement to compensate them for their time and effort. That fee is usually not much, often around $2,000.
The settlement is not finalized, so a malpractice suit against his attorney(s) is premature at this point, but maybe he’s getting that ready. However, he may have submitted a bar complaint, which is when you send a formal complaint to the state bar association. That process could be going on as we speak, but it is… Read more »
That’s what I thought as well. Maybe he has already been informed how much he will receive and is not happy with the number ~\_O_/~
Class Action settlements, in general, enrich the attorneys involved and protect the target (here the NCAA) from further claims (NCAA is protected from any further claims from any athletes for any payment for their past services) . The “Class” generally get very little (coupons / a few dollars each). You are right that the lead plaintiff generally gets a kicker payment, but it usually in the low tens of thousands ($10K to $20K). I’m sure House saw the amount of the settlement and found out how much his attorneys are getting and is very unhappy. Welcome to the American legal system.
.
This settlement fails to layout what various athletes are entitled too. We know men’s football/basketball are… Read more »
The NCAA deserves the blame, and its olympic sports leaders deserve a heap of blame, too. The NCAA first lost its “labor law doesn’t apply to student-athletes” argument over 20 years ago, and ever since, it has buried its head in the sand. Olympic/non-revenue sports have lived off the backs of football and basketball players, so the first time the NCAA lost this argument, olympic sports leaders should have been fighting tooth and nail to get the NCAA to change the law. All the NCAA had to do was ask Congress to change the law. Paying college athletes was hugely unpopular with the general public up through just a few years ago, and it’s still controversial at best, so getting… Read more »
So what exactly changed in this preliminary approval? Just added a clearer definition to “booster” that the school and school-related affiliates can’t pay-to-play but boosters can?
That’s what it looks like, but I’m just going off this article and haven’t read the agreement.