As the spring semester gets started across colleges and universities in the United States, both former and current college athletes are pushing back on the settlement agreement from the House v. NCAA case. The landmark case and settlement, one in a laundry list of legal battles challenging amateurism and compensation at the collegiate level, was originally praised as the true signal that “pay to play” was finally coming to college sports.[i] However, objections filed demonstrate that not everyone is satisfied with the results of the proposed settlement.
Background History
On October 7, 2024, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of a settlement that would pay out billions to former, current, and future college athletes.[ii] The settlement, stemming from combined cases filed by athletes from Arizona State, Oregon, and Illinois, would lead to $2.78 billion in backpay payments to people who were D-1 athletes from June 15, 2016, through the present.[iii]
Herein lies the first of many problems of the settlement. Of those back payments, 75% is expected to go to football players, with only 20% going to men’s and women’s basketball players, and 5% going to all other athletes.[iv] Additionally, the settlement also created a landmark revenue-sharing plan between athletes and power conference schools, where a maximum of 22% of a school’s revenue from athletic media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships can be paid directly to the athletes.[v]
As the final settlement hearing date approaches, power conference schools like the University of Cincinnati have begun putting out notices to current and former athletes, updating them as the settlement continues.[vi] Even non-power conference schools have begun exploring revenue generating options, with UB Athletic Director Mark Alnutt telling The Buffalo News that the university is exploring “athletic enhancement awards” through athletic facility naming rights, jersey patches, and additional sponsorship opportunities.[vii]
While schools are preparing for a new world of college athletics, many current and former athletes have voiced their displeasure with the House settlement.
The Opt-Outs
This past Friday marked the date where members of the class action suit could opt-out of the settlement. As of this writing, over 250 members had opted out, including notable college athletes such as Livvy Dunne of LSU and former Mississippi State running back Kylin Hill.[viii] Hill, along with sixty-seven former D-1 college football and basketball players, have also filed suit against the N.C.A.A. with similar anti-trust claims to those in the House case.[ix]
The main reason behind the opt-outs are simple. The athletes feel that they deserve, and can get, more from the settlement. In her letter of objection, Dunne explained that the lack of transparency on NIL calculation along with “continuing the long tradition of shutting athletes out…where they hold a financial interest,” factored into why she opted out.[x]
Three other reasons, roster limits, Title IX issues, and the aforementioned anti-trust issues, have been cited as other contributing factors to the opt-outs. Roster limits have become the decisive factor for many of the opt-outs, as the settlement would do away with the N.C.A.A.’s limits on scholarships, substituting it for overall roster limits across all sports.[xi]
Objection letters, mostly from anonymous athletes or their parents, have been pouring in, expressing concerns over how the roster limits would affect athletes, particularly those not on football or men’s basketball rosters. “This case doesn’t seem to be about helping athletes like me” an anonymous athlete decried in their letter filed on January 27. An anonymous UCLA parent went on to explain in a letter filed on February 3, that the roster limits would negatively impact many UCLA athletes who would have their admission rescinded from the school because of the roster limits.[xii] “Any athlete who stops playing their sport before junior year has their admission rescinded and is automatically expelled,” explained the parent, citing a recent UCLA Faculty-Senate vote in response to the Varsity Blues scandal.[xiii] The letter went on to express fear that the Faculty-Senate appears to have no indication of changing this policy either.[xiv]
Gender and Title IX issues were also cited as a major reason for many women athletes opting out of the settlement as well. “Class Counsel proclaim they have negotiated a ‘revolutionary settlement agreement’ that will ‘reshape the economic landscape of college sports,’” wrote seven female rowers in their letter of objection. “True – but only for male football and basketball players.”[xv]
While it seemed that the finish line for the House settlement was imminent, many questions remain about how the settlement will be distributed, how much more the athletes can get, and how the settlement will reshape rosters in the near future. One more important date, March 3, when the Motion for Final Approval and Response to Objections are due, remains before the April 7 approval hearing.[xvi] It will be interesting to see how the court and the N.C.A.A. respond, particularly as more NIL lawsuits[xvii] pour in along with states introducing bills to benefit NIL compensation.[xviii] Stay tuned!
[i] https://ublawsportsforum.com/2024/10/07/and-the-new-era-of-college-sports-begins/#more-18258
[ii] https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/10/preliminary-approval-of-settlement-in-house-v-ncaa-could-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports
[iii] Id.
[iv] Id.
[v] https://www.avemarialaw.edu/house-settlement/
[vi] https://gobearcats.com/news/2025/1/29/general-house-vs-ncaa-settlement-explained.aspx?print=true
[vii] https://buffalonews.com/sports/college/house-settlement-buffalo-athletics-naming-rights-ub-stadium-alumni-arena/article_d740f8bc-cab2-11ef-be7b-4bef4094d8d3.html
[viii] https://frontofficesports.com/college-athletes-opt-out-house-ncaa-settlement/
[ix] https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2025/house-opt-outs-kylin-hill-ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit-1234826316/
[x] https://drive.google.com/file/d/137OjPQzqKHd_BZu6S3AXq5hSS5-lcC2C/view
[xi] https://frontofficesports.com/house-v-ncaa-objections-highlight-three-major-concerns/
[xii] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SPthq4KCjBoXk9KX7lOnkY4hPBsmiKML/view
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Id.
[xv] https://frontofficesports.com/house-v-ncaa-objections-highlight-three-major-concerns/
[xvi] https://www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com/tracker
[xvii] https://www.on3.com/nil/news/more-than-300-former-michigan-football-players-join-lawsuit-ncaa-big-ten-denard-robinson/. More than 300 Michigan football players have filed a lawsuit against the N.C.A.A. and the Big Ten alleging that their name, image, and likeness were used without their permission on Big Ten Network broadcasts.
[xviii] https://x.com/WinterSportsLaw/status/1886875364590301350. The Georgia legislature introduced a bill that would exempt NIL compensation from state income tax.
Image Credit: John Glaser – John Glaser USA Today Sports