College athletics is on the cusp of the biggest change in its history after the NCAA and Big Ten Conference leadership approved a $2.8 billion settlement of antitrust claims on Wednesday.
The NCAA completed a three-part approval process late Wednesday, with the 15-member board of governors unanimously approving the proposal with one abstention, according to two people with direct knowledge of the vote who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the NCAA has not made its internal process public.
The settlement potentially resolves three major antitrust lawsuits that threaten the NCAA with nearly $20 billion in damages and could cripple the organization. The settlement includes dramatic changes to the NCAA’s amateur sports model, including allowing schools to share revenue with athletes.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers in House v. NCAA gave the defendants a deadline Thursday to agree to a settlement, and the presidents of the Southeastern Conference and Pac-12 were scheduled to meet later in the day to consider the agreement.
The boards of presidents of the Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conference voted Tuesday to move forward with the settlement. Big Ten presidents voted Wednesday to approve the deal at their spring meeting in Los Angeles, a person with direct knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. This is because the discussions have not been made public.
As the league and NCAA move forward toward a settlement, a fourth antitrust lawsuit adds potential complications.
U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado on Thursday decided not to move the Fontenot v. NCAA case to California and consolidate it with one of the other antitrust cases that could be subject to a settlement. It was decided that the case should remain in court.
Fontenot plaintiffs’ attorneys said they won’t know if their claims will qualify for a settlement until they know all the details of the proposal.
“They have to do business with us anyway, otherwise I don’t see how a settlement will ultimately be reached,” said George Zelks, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “They have to either include us or get an order requiring us to be involved in it. We have opinions against all of that, too.”
The NCAA and five conferences named in the House v. NCAA lawsuit, which is at the center of the settlement talks, have asked Sweeney to link the Fontenot lawsuit to Carter v. NCAA, a lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California.
Under the terms of the settlement, the NCAA will pay $2.77 billion over 10 years to former and current college athletes who have been unable to receive sponsorship revenue since 2016 due to now-defunct rules. Become. The NCAA and conferences also agreed to establish a revenue-sharing system in which schools will be allowed (though not required) to spend about $21 million annually on athletes. This amount can increase over time if your income increases.
The cases, House v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, have already been consolidated in the Northern District of California and are being heard by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has ruled against the NCAA in several high-profile antitrust cases in recent years.
Carter’s case is being presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg, who will join Fontenot on the bench.
Former Colorado State football player Alex Fontenot said last November that NCAA rules illegally prevent college athletes from receiving a fair share of the millions of dollars in revenue their schools generate. filed a lawsuit. said Garrett Brochuis, a colleague of Mr. Zelks at the law firm Corinne Tillery. Fontenot’s case has fundamental differences from his three other cases and should not be combined.
“The House focused on the issue of name, image and likeness rights, which is actually just a small portion of the total revenue that the NCAA and the conferences and their members bring in,” Broshuis told The Associated Press. “Our lawsuit focuses rather on what the true free market value of the services that these athletes provide.”
Brochuis said Carter’s lawsuit focuses only on basketball and football players from the Power 5 conferences: ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.
“On the other hand, the class Fontenot proposed is broader than that. In any sport, revenue is revenue,” he said.
The House lawsuit is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages for college athletes who have been denied name, likeness and likeness compensation since 2016. The NCAA lifted its ban on athletes earning NIL compensation in 2021.
Steve Berman, one of the House’s lead lawyers, said in a statement to The Associated Press that Fontenot’s legal matters overlap completely with other lawsuits and that if the settlement is approved, “all of their claims will be discharged.”
“And in terms of the argument that we’re waiting to see if they want to be a part of it, they’ve already challenged it in court in Colorado without even seeing the agreement, which is totally irresponsible,” Berman said. “Especially if they’re not contributing to the momentum that’s allowed us to get this done, as opposed to Johnny coming these days.”
