Athletes Await Final Approval of $2.8 Billion NCAA Antitrust Settlement

In one of the most consequential moments in college sports history, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, has declined final approval to a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement between the NCAA, its major conferences, and thousands of current and former Division I athletes. In October of 2024, Judge Wilken, preliminarily approved the settlement – a deal that would have ended a years-long legal battle over athlete compensation and would have marked a defining shift in the NCAA’s longstanding amateurism model.

Judge Claudia Wilken, who previously presided over O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston, in the Northern District of California, held a final approval hearing on April 7, 2025. Final approval is contingent upon satisfactory resolution of roster limits and athlete protections. Judge Wilken considered several objections to the proposed settlement agreement, including those from student athletes.

House v. NCAA: A Historic Class Action

The class-action lawsuit, House v. NCAA, was initiated by former and current Division I athletes who argued that the NCAA’s restrictions on name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation violated federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs, led by athletes such as Grant House and Sedona Prince, argued that the NCAA and the Power Five conferences suppressed athletes’ economic rights by prohibiting direct payments and severely limiting NIL earnings.

The case gained momentum following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021) invalidating NCAA caps on “education-related” benefits. This decision signaled an open pathway for broader challenges to compensation restrictions.

Terms of the Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement, pending final approval, includes:

• Backpay Compensation: Approximately $2.8 billion will be distributed over ten years to athletes who competed in Division I sports from 2016 to 2024, compensating them for lost NIL opportunities.
• Future Revenue Sharing: Beginning July 1, 2025, schools may allocate up to $20.5 million annually to directly compensate current athletes, marking a significant departure from the NCAA’s amateurism model.
• Structural Reforms: The settlement includes provisions to address concerns over potential roster reductions, allowing athletes who lost roster spots due to anticipated limits to return or transfer without counting against new caps.

Objections Raised by Stakeholders

• Roster Limit Concerns: Those opposing the settlement argued that increased roster limits could negatively impact Olympic sports and walk-on athletes. This would force financial and resource allocation decisions that are bound to negatively affect institutions and student athletes.
• Revenue Distribution Ambiguity: The settlement does not detail how revenue sharing funds must be distributed within athletic departments. Opponents to the settlement believe that institutions will choose to fund revenue generating sports, leaving less profitable sports to be underfunded and ignored.
• Title IX and  Gender Equity: The Trump Administration rescinded guidance from the Biden administration emphasizing equal NIL opportunities for male and female athletes. With the rescinded guidance and the absence of clear guidelines for revenue sharing, opponents are worried that the settlement does not clearly address Title XI compliance issues.

During the hearing, Judge Wilken gave the parties a week to address the issues in more detail including possible changes to language that would bind future athletes who are not represented or currently in college and potential changes to the roster limits language with the potential for a “grandfathering” clause to assist athletes who were offered roster sports before the settlement’s approval and may lose those spots once the settlement is approved.

Judge Wilken Orders Revisions

On April 23, Judge Wilken declined to grant final approval of the proposed settlement agreement, finding that the immediate implementation of the roster limit provisions would cause (and already has caused) harm to student athletes. The order notes that some individuals have already been removed from rosters due to the “premature implementation” of the settlement agreement. Unless parties submit a revised proposal addressing those concerns, Judge Wilken would not approve the settlement.

On May 7th, parties submitted a revised proposal, including a grandfather clause to protect any athelte who has been or would have been cut as a result of the settlement’s roster cap. Those athletes will not count against the proposed roster limits for the duration of their college eligibility, including the incoming freshman for the 2025-26 academic year who had been previously offered a spot that was revoked because of settlement preperations. However, multiple objectors responded arguing that the solution does not go far enough and the athletes who have been or would have been cut should be guaranteed their spot either at the current school or another school.

The lawyers for the NCAA and power conference argued that the most recent revision on the roster limits satisfy Judge Wilken’s request and that “there are no legal obstacles standing in the way of this historic settlement.” The plaintiffs in this case echoed the Defendants’ stance. The settlement is now in the hands of Judge Wilken while all parties involved anticipate her decision. The approval of the NCAA’s $2.8 billion settlement would signify a shift in college athletics that strays from the past model of treating student-athletes like amateurs and moves toward one that acknowledges and compensates athletes as integral contributors to a multibillion-dollar industry.

Miller Shah LLP’s Ongoing Advocacy in Antitrust and Labor Law

Miller Shah LLP continues to advocate for fair labor practices and challenging anticompetitive conduct across all industries. Our experience in complex antitrust litigation positions us to support athletes and workers seeking justice and equitable treatment.

The most recent exhibition of this expertise was when our firm secured a significant victory in the Norwegian Salmon antitrust case, achieving a $33 million settlement for clients affected by price-fixing conspiracies. This accomplishment reflects our dedication to holding powerful entities accountable and ensuring fair competition across various sectors. The NCAA settlement serves as a blueprint for addressing systemic inequities in sports and beyond, affirming that legal action can drive meaningful change.