Lawyers File New Documents in Attempt to Save House v. NCAA Settlement

The NCAA, Power 5 conferences, and plaintiff attorneys on Thursday night filed an amended settlement proposal in the House v. NCAA case that included changes to issues raised by Northern District of California Judge Claudia Wilken. 

The amended settlement still grants the NCAA the ability to block certain NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals—an issue Wilken expressly told lawyers to “go back to the drawing board” to address.

The changes are an attempt by lawyers to satisfy Wilken’s concerns without taking out too many of the provisions the NCAA considers integral to the deal. The NCAA had made it clear, for example, that if the settlement didn’t include the ability to block certain NIL deals, the NCAA may be willing to kill the settlement and go to trial.

The settlement, first filed in July, would require the NCAA and power conferences to pay $2.8 billion in damages, as well as allow schools to share a percentage of revenue with athletes for the first time in history (in the beginning, up to around $22 million). But the settlement also included new athlete compensation restrictions, establishing a third-party to review and potentially block any NIL deal over $600 that was seen as pay-for-play, and not “fair market value.” It was a direct attempt at controlling NIL collectives.

During a hearing on Sept. 5, Wilken’s strongest objection appeared to be to the NIL deal approval process. Wilken was wary of giving the NCAA the power to dictate which NIL deals athletes could or couldn’t sign. She raised the issue of the definition of a booster, and asked if the approval process would end up taking existing deals away from athletes (something she said is not very popular). 

The attorneys filed a brief that explained that because NCAA rules already prohibit NIL deals used as pay for play, the settlement wouldn’t actually prohibit any deals that aren’t already against the rules. It also explained that the NIL restrictions would only apply to entities that resembled collectives—whereas before, all third parties had to go through that process.

The settlement provided a new definition of “booster” (a longtime legal dispute). Some of the new criteria include a person who has contributed more than $50,000 to a school or NIL collective, someone who works for an NIL collective, or someone who helps with recruiting. 

But it did little else to change the terms of the settlement regarding the NIL restrictions.

Wilken will now have the opportunity to decide whether to accept the settlement and allow a monthslong process for final approval to go forward. It’s unclear if the new changes and explanations provided will be enough to sway her.