Hearing Monday In Oakland Court Addressed Remaining Contentious Issues In Landmark College Sports Settlement

By Oliver Hinson for DyeStat

Logan Hannigan-Downs photo

Judge Claudia Wilken delayed her ruling in the landmark House vs. NCAA court case Monday in Oakland, Calif., implying she would not grant final approval unless changes were made to the settlement.

Among other issues, Wilken expressed concerns about the proposed roster limits that would affect all sports and the potential infringement of rights of future collegiate athletes.

“See what you can do about all these issues,” Wilken said at the end of the hearing. “Basically, I think it’s a good settlement — don’t quote me on that — but it is worth pursuing (how) to fix them.”

The roster limits have been the key issue of the settlement in the track and field sphere. If Wilken eventually gives her approval, Power 5 schools (as well as all others that opt into the revenue-sharing agreement dictated by the settlement) will be forced to cut their cross country rosters to 17 athletes, while track and field rosters will be cut down to 35 athletes.

Rakesh Kilaru, the attorney for the NCAA, highlighted the increase in scholarship limits (for all sports, there will be as many scholarships as roster spots) as a positive change, but Wilken said that would be a “small comfort” for an athlete who doesn’t make the team because of the roster limits.

Gracelyn Laudermilch, a high school runner from Northeast Bradford PA, told Wilken that she had previously made a decision to commit to a college, which she did not name, but after telling the coach, she was told there was no longer a spot for her on the team.

“No one can explain why roster limits are good for anyone,” Laudermilch said.

Laudermilch told Wilken that “our futures are in your hands.”

Additionally, University of Utah swimmer Gannon Flynn said that current college athletes are being told to “transfer or quit outright” because of the anticipation of the roster limits.

Hearing these arguments, Wilken suggested that there could be a grandfather clause or a phased implementation for the roster limits. She said that excluding current athletes from the roster cuts could be a “goodwill” move and could decrease a lot of the discontent surrounding the settlement.

“It’s not that many people,” Wilken said. “It’s not that much money.”

Kilaru objected to this proposal, arguing that when paired with the scholarship limit increase, the roster limit decrease increases competition and provides more opportunity for athletes.

The cuts would certainly increase competition to make rosters, but many have argued that they would take away opportunities for athletes, not provide more. According to data from the Department of Education, which Flynn cited in his argument, more than 5,000 student athletes would lose their roster spots if the limits are approved.

Wilken also said she was concerned about the rights of future athletes. If she approves the settlement, it will be in place for a decade, meaning athletes who are younger than 10 years old right now would be affected by it. Wilken expressed concern about those athletes’ rights to due process, which would potentially be infringed upon by the settlement; she said she was unsure about legal precedent on the matter.

Jeff Kessler, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers (the party pursuing the settlement), said the agreement is “consistent with due process;” he cited the fact that incoming collegiate athletes would have the opportunity to raise objections in a court, just as current athletes are able to now. He said a judge could even terminate the settlement in the future if he or she rules in favor of an athlete who objects to it.

Wilken’s other major concern was with name, image and likeness deals. Under the settlement, all NIL deals worth more than $600 would be reviewed by a regulatory agency to ensure their legitimacy. Wilken said she needed to see that these reviews would help athletes, not hurt them.

At the end of the hearing, Wilken said she wanted to see changes made to the settlement. She proposed during the hearing the possibility of accepting parts of the settlement, but Kilaru said the NCAA is not interested in a partial agreement.

There are some risks to not reaching an agreement, according to Steve Berman, another lawyer for the plaintiffs. The NCAA has a strong interest in getting the settlement approved; yes, they would pay nearly $2.8 billion to former athletes who allegedly lost out on NIL opportunities, but that number could be much higher if the case goes to trial. However, Congress could act to provide the NCAA immunity for much of those damages, meaning the former athletes would receive far less in damages.

The principals agreed to notify Wilken in a week about how they can address some of her concerns. From there, the objectors would need to respond to any changes in the agreement within a day.