NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Antitrust Settlement Hit With New Objections

The NCAA is facing pushback to its revised $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, with critics saying the deal doesn’t go far enough to protect student-athletes from losing spots on college rosters.

Robert B. Hinckley Jr., co-chair of the litigation group at Buchalter, on Tuesday filed an objection on behalf of Division I athletes, saying the changes proposed by the NCAA are “cold comfort indeed for thousands of members” of the settlement class.

“With proverbial crossed fingers, the Parties have presented a non-solution for the Court’s consideration: that members of the Injunctive Relief Class, facing immediate and continuing harm from roster cuts, should only be given an opportunity and not a guarantee to recover and maintain a roster spot,” Hinckley said in the filing submitted in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The issue of roster spots has emerged as a flashpoint in the NCAA’s effort to gain final approval of a deal that would provide damages to thousands of D-I athletes for its past restrictions on athlete compensation. Thousands of class members are poised to lose their spots if the roster cuts are implemented, objectors say.

Hinckley is representing objectors Madeline Berg and Emma Lykins, who are part of the settlement class and were cut from the Ohio University swim team.

The NCAA has argued for limits on rosters because spots aren’t currently guaranteed and restricting them would open the door to limitless additional scholarships.

But Judge Claudia Wilken last month warned the NCAA that members of the settlement class affected by the roster limits provision must be guaranteed their roster spots. She threatened to send the case to trial if her conditions weren’t met.

The NCAA filed revisions last week, saying it would exempt some athletes from losing their spots. But the NCAA and member schools would retain discretion to cut players for other factors such as poor academic and athletic performance or disciplinary issues.

More Protections

Objectors said the proposed solution shouldn’t satisfy the judge.

“If given the opportunity, some Member Institutions will continue to harm members by refusing to bring back cut class members and continuing to cut members in the future. Schools have no incentive to do otherwise, which is the compelling reason why the proposed solution is illusory,” Hinckley said in his filing.

He proposed adding a formal grievance system enabling athletes to seek redress for harms related to losing their roster spots.

Many athletes and their families say their lives would be “turned upside down” by roster caps, said attorney Steven Molo, who also represents athletes opposed to the deal, in a filing May 9. Objectors are hearing that schools have no intention of relaxing roster limits at all, he said.

“Defendants’ indifference, when simple fixes were offered to address a problem of their making, is stunning,” Molo, of MoloLamken LLP, said.

A third objection was filed Tuesday by Lathrop GPM LLP’s Laura Reathaford, representing her daughter, Emma Reathaford, a Temple University gymnast.

Jeffrey Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP who represents the athlete plaintiffs’ class, declined to comment for this story. Plaintiffs and the NCAA have a May 16 deadline to reply to the objections.

Competitive Balance

Historically, there have always been limits on professional and college rosters, otherwise schools could have unlimited team members, throwing off the competitive balance on the field, said Cal Stein, a litigation partner with Troutman Pepper Locke.

“Think about a volleyball team and one team shows up with a roster of 30 and the other shows up with a roster of 10,” Stein said.

The objectors are seizing on the NCAA’s desire to keep its discretion, saying they want roster spots for current student-athletes and recruited student-athletes to be guaranteed. “They are interpreting Judge Wilken’s comments to guarantee them—full stop,” Stein said.

It would behoove the NCAA to add a provision for a formal grievance system, instead of facing likely litigation from student-athletes over roster cuts, he said.

“The implementation of something like that would solve all of these issues,” Stein said. “To me, the judge can either look at this and say ‘no I don’t think we need this, I do think the schools can be trusted without it. I’m approving the settlement’ or she is going to go back to the parties and say ‘come on, we are so close, can’t we have some sort of adjudication system that we can agree on?’ ”

The plaintiffs are also represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP.

The case is In re College Athlete NIL Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 4:20-cv-03919, 5/13/25.