{"id":268,"date":"2024-10-07T17:09:05","date_gmt":"2024-10-07T21:09:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/sportslaw\/?p=268"},"modified":"2024-10-07T17:09:06","modified_gmt":"2024-10-07T21:09:06","slug":"judge-wilken-grants-preliminary-approval-to-the-house-v-ncaa-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/sportslaw\/2024\/10\/07\/judge-wilken-grants-preliminary-approval-to-the-house-v-ncaa-settlement\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Wilken Grants Preliminary Approval to the House v. NCAA Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As discussed in our prior Alerts<\/em> (including on June 6<\/a>, August 1<\/a>, and September 6<\/a>, 2024), three major class action antitrust lawsuits brought against the NCAA: House v. NCAA<\/em>, Hubbard v. NCAA<\/em>, and Carter v. NCAA<\/em> \u2014 all from athletes claiming the NCAA violates the Sherman Act\u2014reached a preliminary settlement agreement that has been pending before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken. Following the Court\u2019s September 5, 2024 fairness hearing, where Judge Wilken raised various concerns regarding the settlement\u2019s language relating to the NCAA\u2019s 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 \u201cbooster\u201d 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\u2014which was defined in the settlement as anyone who provided more than $50,000 to a school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, Judge Wilken\u2019s grant of preliminary approval does not mean she will grant final approval.\u00a0 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. \u00a0The 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\u2019t stop labor and employment lawsuits (including\u00a0Johnson v. NCAA <\/em>and Fontenot v. NCAA<\/em>), NLRB charges (including those involving Dartmouth and USC athletes) and lawsuits brought under Title IX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

College athletic departments will likely now (if they haven\u2019t 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key upcoming dates include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n