Analysis of Objections: College Athlete Antitrust Litigation
The Drake Group, a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization working to better educate the U.S. Congress and higher education policy-makers about critical issues in intercollegiate athletics, released a major report: The Drake Group Report: An Analysis of Objections to the Proposed Settlement of College Athlete NIL Litigation (aka House/Carter v. NCAA and Power Five conferences). See it here. The purpose of the report is to give members of Congress, higher education and college athletics stakeholders, and the general public, greater insight into the nature of Settlement objections, how they relate to the questions that will be considered by the Court in making its decision to approve or reject the Settlement, and how the various provisions of the Settlement might impact college sport.
Background: On April 7, 2025, The Honorable Claudia Wilken, senior United States District Court Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, will conduct a hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement of College Athlete NIL Litigation (aka House/Carter v. NCAA and Power Five conferences) should be approved. At issue in this litigation is whether athletes at the Power Five institutions, if not for NCAA rules, would have been compensated for their names, images, and likenesses (NILs), the revenue they generated (House), and provided with salaries for their playing services (Carter). The plaintiffs have characterized the settlement as representing an “intergalactic paradigm shift.”
The proposed Settlement has two major parts: past damages and future injunctive relief. First, if approved, the settlement provides, among other things, that the NCAA will pay $2.8 billion in past damages to certain athletes. More specifically, over ninety percent of the amount (less $484 million amount requested for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees) will go to football and male basketball players at Power Five institutions. Second, the settlement would allow more than $20 billion in so-called “revenue-share” payments from the schools to athletes over the next ten years. All NCAA Division I institutions will be affected by the payment of past damages and all have the choice to opt into the future pay-for-play system which also includes roster limits but no scholarship restrictions.
Kassandra Ramsey, President of The Drake Group, issued the following statement:
“College athletics is a unique enterprise that is embedded in American culture and one of the few entities that has the unique power to bring Americans of varying backgrounds together in the pursuit of one common purpose. That common purpose is constructing highly talented teams passionately pursuing a common goal, a proxy for the society we aspire to be, and providing premier educational opportunities to the athletes on those teams. As great as American college sports is, it is not without its flaws. Perhaps the biggest flaw of the system is the industry’s disregard for the rights and voices of the college athletes the industry seeks to serve and the penchants of too many to exploit the talents of athletes for personal and institutional gain.
Hundreds of college athletes filed objections and wrote letters voicing their concerns regarding the settlement. Some made suggestions on ways to make the settlement more equitable for all athletes. Others pointed out several areas where the settlement stands to negatively affect thousands of college athletes if approved. I hope readers are struck by the fact that college athletes, who will be most affected by the outcome of the settlement, were only able to voice their concerns through objections instead of having a voice representative of all college athletes at the negotiation table. Accordingly, one should question who should be around the table representing higher education and sport in an educational setting. The conversation needs to be about so much more than money and needs to include a voice representative of all college athletes.”