In an order issued on Wednesday, Judge Claudia Wilken announced she will not approve the historic House vs. NCAA settlement unless changes are made to the proposed roster limits, which would replace scholarship limits should the settlement be approved. Judge Wilken has given attorneys 14 days to adjust the settlement’s language to include a “grandfathering” clause to roster limits that would protect athletes already on a school’s roster.
“The Court will delay denial of final approval to permit the parties to attempt to modify the settlement agreement,” Wilken wrote, “so that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provision.”
Wilken’s order stands to throw the NCAA into even further chaos as it navigates this settlement, which, if approved, will transform college athletics and send $2.8 billion in backpay to current and former student-athletes. In preparation for the settlement’s final approval, conferences and universities have pre-emptively set roster limits and begun enforcing them, causing current students to lose their roster spots and committed athletes to have their offers revoked.
The roster-limit concept has been one of the biggest sticking points during the settlement process. During the final approval hearing for the settlement on April 7, many of the objectors spoke against roster limits. It was one of the two biggest issues Wilken had with the settlement during that hearing—the other being the fact that the 10-year term on the agreement was making decisions on behalf of future college athletes who had no voice in the process.
Wilken did not grant final approval at the end of that hearing, instead giving parties a week to revise the language surrounding the two primary issues she had with the settlement. Nevertheless, in last Monday’s filing, the defendants as well as the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not make any changes to the roster limits clauses in the settlement.
Wilken’s order makes it clear she was unmoved by these arguments, stating that immediately implementing roster limits “will result in harm to a significant number of athletes” including those who were recently cut because of the “premature implementation” of the settlement.
“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…any disruption that may occur is a problem of defendants’ and NCAA member schools’ own making,” she wrote.
If the parties are unable to arrive at language that satisfies Judge Wilken, causing her to not grant final approval, the settlement would go to trial. The NCAA and power conferences stated after Wilken’s order their focus “continues to be on securing approval of this significant agreement,” while Steve Berman, the co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs stated “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.”
Wilken not granting final approval would send the NCAA into even further instability as roster limits are far from the only thing the NCAA and conferences moved on in anticipation of the settlement being approved. The league and power conferences also hammered out revenue-sharing deals, expecting to begin paying upwards of $20 million to their athletes annually beginning July 1, 2025.
The coaches of programs who cut 40+ kids THAT THEY RECRUITED in hopes of capitalizing on an opportunity to restart their program in a cheap and dirty way need to be held accountable and fired. If you want better swims, try doing your job and COACHING the kids in your own pool who are there are YOUR invitation. These athletes were young adults pursuing academic degrees with money and time invested. Credits don’t all transfer, academic scholarships are lost, property leases signed in good faith will cause financial hardship, and all of these things ignore the impact to mental health caused by losing everything they’ve worked for in an 8 minute meeting in late March/early April. Yes, these kids can… Read more »
💯
Thank you that is everything I have wanted to say. Everything my family has felt with TWO boys cut. This has been an emotional nightmare.
Getting out of a lease… yeah our new challenge.
The ez ist solution IMO is to have a transition year of roster number + 5%to10% (30+(1.5-3)= 32 to 33 for next year then final roster limit for the next year. Simplist solution with the least mess
The judge wants the specific athletes grandfathered. Slowly changing the number permits bad actors to use the chaos to cut kids and bring in transfers to replace them. That need to grant the kids on roster last year “grandfathered status” just like granting the kids on rosters in 2020 a “COVID” year.
The NCAA caused the chaos, the plaintiffs lawyers dragged them into the class action, and the judge knows that members of class in a class action can’t be harmed by the settlement.
Agree that it is a little too late for the vast majority in all cut/transferred athletes from all sports except maybe FB and BBall who can afford the bigger rosters. Honestly so disappointed in the judicial oversight of this case to have such lack of awareness on how college athletics works and the implications of the ruling. Did the judge really think the plaintiff attorneys (payout) or defendant attorneys (survival) were going to help? The true student athletes from low revenue sports continue to lose due to no one caring on so many levels, but we all knew that.
No matter what the language is changed to, the conferences can set their own roster limits.
The conferences are part of the settlement, so they would be subject to the terms. Perhaps the settlement won’t make grandfathering mandatory, but I imagine it will be. Once the grandfathering period is over, then conferences can cap rosters as low as they want.
Schools will just set their own roster limits. It’s happened at certain universities for years. Very few schools are going to have extra roster spots stay open for a few years especially when it’s now known these roster slots are extra, non-scoring slots
Yes – each school can set their own based on their own needs and wants. That does not violate antitrust law.
It is when they all get together and collusively decide to limit demand for athletes or suppress compensation and distort the marketplace that they start violating antitrust laws.
Made no sense all along to immediately disrupt student athletes’ lives and break promises/assurances given to them without slow walking the change (grandfathering) or compensating them for the disruption. It is no surprise to me that the people/groups with the means to do so are advocating for the student athletes. The coaches should have been the first ones to do it (I am sure they did behind closed doors). This is a mess but moving slowly with a clear set of rules going forward and keeping the agreements with student athletes that they already had would have been much more prudent.
A cut athlete would have a cause of action against the school for a “pre-emptive” cut if not offered his/her spot back. A roster spot at a new school may limit damages, but if not equivalent situation the prior school would owe damages.
Judge really doesn’t understand college sports enough for this sweeping change. She needed to say ‘no pre-emptive cuts’ in the fall hearing. But factoring in portal timing close within the next 2 wks…what a cluster.
Legally a certified class cannot harm members of its class. This is basic concept of class actions and both sides know this and attempted to slide it past the judge. (Not an expert on class actions, at all, but this legal concept… Read more »
Two problems: 1, the people being harmed (cut athletes) are not members of the primary class—they’re collateral damage that the judge wants to minimize as much as possible. 2, the judge didn’t cause this problem by not raising it at the fall hearing—the NCAA and conferences cause the problem by trying to rush to implement changes before the settlement was done. This would have been much smoother if the NCAA and conferences would have waited to implement the settlement until fall 2026. The whole thing could still fall through, so the appropriate action would be to create plans to implement but not begin implementing them. “We assumed this would work so don’t please change it” is not a winning argument… Read more »
All current and former D1 athletes who competed from June 2016-September 2024 are members of the primary class, no? So as long as the athlete competed within that window, it would not be legal for them to be harmed(cut), as it would harm members of the primary class, right? Many athletes fall into this range, however, it is unlikely incoming commits would be protected.
There are four different classes. Three of them relate to back pay. The injunctive relief class includes all current athletes and future athletes for the next decade.
The roster limits apply to all injunctive relief class members and their immediate implementation would obviously only injure current athletes. The reason there was little opposition to roster limits at the preliminary hearing is that Notice had not been sent yet, roster limits were a relatively new concept in this 5 year old litigation, and the lawyers representing the class stand to make $725 million if they ignored the inherent class conflicts, sold out a subset of their clients and agreed to roster limits.
Now you know why some schools were so quick to cut their rosters…pay attention.
What an incredible mess! I feel so bad for prematurely cut swimmers. And, how many lawsuits from prematurely cut swimmers will we see?