NIL – Duane Morris Sports Law

April 8, 2025April 8, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Judge Wilken Conducts Final Approval Hearing in House v. NCAA

On April 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken convened a final approval hearing for the proposed $2.8 billion settlement resolving three high-profile antitrust cases—House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA. As discussed in previous updates, Judge Wilken has appeared supportive of this settlement from its initial filing, but she acknowledged at the hearing that there was room for improvement. Specifically, Judge Wilken directed attorneys representing both the athletes and the NCAA to provide an update within a week, addressing whether they could agree to certain issues she outlined:

Key Issues Highlighted by Judge Wilken:

Grandfathering Current Athletes and Scholarship Limits: One of the most significant concerns acknowledged by Judge Wilken was the potential impact of the settlement on current student-athletes who may lose their roster spots as a result of changes to scholarship structures under the settlement’s terms. Many objectors had voiced concerns with this aspect of the settlement. Judge Wilken noted that many athletes likely chose their institutions with the expectation of continuing to compete in their respective sports. She expressed that it would be unfair for these athletes to face the prospect of losing their scholarships due to roster limitations introduced by the settlement. In light of this, Judge Wilken suggested that these athletes should be “grandfathered in” and allowed to maintain their scholarships, which would prevent them from being disadvantaged by the new restrictions. She emphasized that the number of athletes affected would be relatively small and that such a move would likely generate goodwill among both athletes and the public. While the NCAA’s attorney pushed back on this, Judge Wilken urged the parties to discuss this option further with the NCAA, signaling that this issue may need to be resolved before final approval.
Challenge Rights for Future Athletes: Judge Wilken also demanded more precise language regarding the ability of future college athletes to challenge the settlement once they enter college. She expressed concerns about ensuring that athletes who are not yet part of the settlement class have the opportunity to object to its terms upon matriculation. Attorneys for both the NCAA and Players assured the court that class members could challenge the settlement after they enroll in college, with Judge Wilken retaining the authority to terminate the settlement if problems arise during its implementation.
Concerns Over Timing and Case Dependencies: At one point during the hearing, Judge Wilken considered the possibility of approving the Hubbard case while delaying her ruling on the House and Carter cases. However, after the NCAA attorney emphasized that the settlement requires all three cases to be approved together or else the entire settlement would collapse, Judge Wilken seemingly abandoned this approach. It was made clear that the three cases must proceed as a package.

The concerns articulated by Judge Wilken suggest that significant revisions may be necessary before the settlement can receive final approval. Stakeholders, including educational institutions, student-athletes, and NIL entities, should anticipate potential adjustments to the settlement’s terms and prepare for possible changes in compliance requirements. Close monitoring of further developments is advisable to stay informed about the evolving legal landscape in collegiate athletics.

Within the next week, the NCAA and plaintiffs will respond to Judge Wilken’s concerns. Following that response, stakeholders should anticipate further developments in the settlement’s structure, particularly around scholarship policies and the scope of future athlete challenges. Institutions should review their current scholarship and NIL policies to ensure they remain in compliance with any potential changes resulting from the final settlement.

October 7, 2024October 7, 2024 by Bryan Shapiro

Judge Wilken Grants Preliminary Approval to the House v. NCAA Settlement

As discussed in our prior Alerts (including on June 6, August 1, and September 6, 2024), three major class action antitrust lawsuits brought against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA — all from athletes claiming the NCAA violates the Sherman Act—reached a preliminary settlement agreement that has been pending before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken. Following the Court’s September 5, 2024 fairness hearing, where Judge Wilken raised various concerns regarding the settlement’s language relating to the NCAA’s efforts to limit athlete compensation from outside entities required the parties, Judge Wilken ordered the parties to go back to the drawing board to respond to her concerns. To that end, the parties filed a revised settlement proposal that included the elimination of the term “booster” from the settlement and further clarified that NCAA enforcement of pay-to-play rules regarding NIL would be limited to review of deal with people and entities who are closely affiliated with schools—which was defined in the settlement as anyone who provided more than $50,000 to a school.

On October 7, 2024, Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval to the revised version of the multi-billion-dollar settlement of these three antitrust lawsuits. Based on Judge Wilken’s concerns at the fairness hearing, many thought that the Judge would schedule another hearing before ruling on the revised settlement and/or issue an opinion explaining why the newly proposed language was satisfactory, particularly because the restrictions on third-party NIL deals remained largely unchanged from the original version. Judge Wilken did not do so and simply granted the revised settlement proposal and issued a schedule for how the case will proceed.

Importantly, Judge Wilken’s grant of preliminary approval does not mean she will grant final approval. The class action process will now allow individuals to file objections to the settlement and athletes to opt out of the class. Additionally, there is a real possibility that any approved settlement could be challenged at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then at the U.S. Supreme Court. The grant of preliminary approval does, however, indicate that Judge Wilken believes that these issues can be resolved through a court settlement. In any event, and no matter what happens with the final approval of the settlement, it can’t stop labor and employment lawsuits (including Johnson v. NCAA and Fontenot v. NCAA), NLRB charges (including those involving Dartmouth and USC athletes) and lawsuits brought under Title IX.

College athletic departments will likely now (if they haven’t already) begin acting fast to implement their revenue share plans, because college athletes will begin negotiating their 2025 revenue share agreements during this upcoming recruiting portal season (December 2024 for college football).

Key upcoming dates include:

January 31, 2025 for opt-outs and objections;
March 3, 2025 for the parties’ deadline to respond to objections; and
April 7, 2025 for the Final Approval Hearing (which coincides with the 2025 Men’s March Madness Basketball Championship)

As the settlement process continues, schools, collectives, athletes, and any other party involved in college athletics should monitor these developments and speak to legal counsel to ensure they have a full understanding of, and stay current on, all rules, laws, and guidance.

June 26, 2024 by Andrew John (AJ) Rudowitz

Houston Christian University Raises First Substantive Challenge to the House v. NCAA Settlement

Houston Christian University (“HCU”) recently moved to intervene in the potentially historic antitrust settlement between the NCAA and current and former college athletes. The proposed settlement involves the NCAA, conferences, and member schools paying $2.8 billion to college athletes to resolve alleged antitrust violations related to compensation to the athletes for their name, image, and likeness. In addition, the NCAA and its Power Five conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference) agreed to allow their student athletes to receive pay directly from the universities they compete for—a complete departure from the NCAA’s long-standing system of “amateurism.” The settlement agreement is pending approval by Judge Wilken in the Northern District of California where the cases are pending.

In its motion to intervene, HCU argues that its financial interests were not adequately represented during settlement negotiations. HCU argues that the settlement will unfairly “divert funds from academics to athletics” and will negatively impact all of its students. HCU’s argument is consistent with the majority of the criticism facing the proposed settlement—that the Power Five conferences and NCAA were the only parties at the negotiating table while non-Power Five schools will be on the hook for some of the settlement proceeds. The current settlement proposal apportions the $2.8 billion as follows: 24% from the Power Five conferences, 10% from the Group of Five conferences, 13% from Football Championship Subdivision schools, and 12% from Division I schools without football programs). HCU and other potential interveners in the proposed settlement could result in Judge Wilken denying the proposed class settlement as currently structured.

June 7, 2024 by Duane Morris

NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement with Former College Athletes

On May 23, 2024, the NCAA reached a historic $2.8 billion settlement with former college athletes who had filed an antitrust class action demanding billions in potential compensation allegedly denied to them for decades. This represents a major turning point in college athletics. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.