NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Player-Pay Deal Faces Athlete Objections

Some current and former college athletes are raising objections as a judge weighs a deal that would require the NCAA to pay $2.8 billion in damages for its past restrictions on athlete compensation.

More than a dozen objections were filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by the Jan. 31 deadline, with some of them taking issue with a deal provision that will send most of the settlement proceeds to male athletes. They claim the deal discounted Title IX regulations.

The moves represent a final plea from the parties ahead of an April hearing on whether the resolution is fair.

Judge Claudia Wilken in October gave preliminary approval to the deal, which followed years of legal pressure on the NCAA for allegedly violating antitrust law by barring college athletes from receiving money for promoting their name, image, and likeness.

Under the settlement, the NCAA and its Power Five conferences would pay roughly $2.8 billion in damages to a class of college athletes over a 10-year period.

Universities would also be able to give athletes direct payments and benefits worth up to 22% of their average annual athletic revenue, according to the proposal—a major milestone in the fight for athletes to earn compensation in the billion-dollar college sports industry.

The NCAA and counsel for the class said that they’re confident the settlement will be approved despite the objections.

“All of these objections were for the most part considered and rejected when the court granted preliminary approval,” Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and an attorney for the class, said in an email.

He argued that the damages represent a “high percent of recovery for an antitrust case” and that the “forward looking aspects” are worth over $20 billion. That is on “an equal footing with the pros,” he said. “A fair settlement for sure.”

“We believe the objections raise issues that were already considered as part of the preliminary approval process,” the NCAA said in a statement. “The Association looks forward to continuing the court process and continues to work toward a more equitable and sustainable future for college sports.”

A group of 67 former NCAA athletes, including former Mississippi State University running back Kylin Jatavian Hill, opted out of the class after the settlement was proposed last year.

They filed a separate complaint Jan. 31 with similar antitrust allegations, demanding monetary damages for the compensation restraints the NCAA once imposed.

“We support the class action settlement and recognize the positive impact it will have on many athletes,” Hill’s attorney John Arthur Eaves said. “However, after carefully evaluating the offers extended to the athletes we represent, we found that the settlement formula significantly undervalued their claims—often by a factor of five to twenty. Some athletes were not offered any compensation at all.”

That left “them with no choice but to opt out and pursue justice through individual litigation,” Eaves added.

That same day, a separate group of former college athletes without any apparent link to the class settlement sued the NCAA over pay restrictions, showing the continued legal exposure the organization faces.

The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP. Plaintiffs for the class of athletes also includes Winston & Strawn LLP. The Hill plaintiffs are represented by the Eaves Law Firm LLC and Miller DellaFera PLC. The other group of plaintiffs are represented by Strauss Troy.

The case are In re Coll. Athlete NIL Litig., N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-03919, 1/31/25, Hill v. NCAA, N.D. Cal., 4:25-cv-01011, 1/31/25, and Allen v. NCAA, E.D. Ky., 2:25-cv-00014, 1/31/25.