Why NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8B settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out.
Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement.
He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects.
"I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push," Kilaru said.
A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case "because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes."
He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed.
The other critical parts of the settlement — the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it — are in effect regardless of appeals.
"I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students," Kilaru said. "But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover" if the appeal is successful.
A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case "but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law."
"The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion," Hare said.
Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit.
Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.
Reporting by The Associated Press.
Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily ! FOLLOW Follow your favorites to personalize your FOX Sports experience College Football College Basketball Women's College Basketball
recommended
Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Trump military parade, ‘No Kings' protests
Update: Date: 4 min ago Title: National Guard "twiddling their thumbs in LA" instead of stopping fentanyl trafficking, Gov. Newsom says Content: Members of the California National Guard federalized by President Donald Trump have been pulled away from efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl at the US-Mexico border, Gov. Gavin Newson claimed in a social media post yesterday. Newsom's comments on X were in response to a post by White House adviser Stephen Miller regarding the administration's border security priorities. 'You just pulled National Guard I placed at the border who were stopping fentanyl smuggling,' Newsom wrote. 'Now they're twiddling their thumbs in LA.' Remember: Trump federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard against Newsom's will, with orders to protect federal buildings and personnel amid immigration protests in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Newsom said Trump's deployment of guard troops to LA also threatened the state's ability to respond to wildfires. Update: Date: 8 min ago Title: About 60 veterans and military families arrested last night at US Capitol protest after crossing police line Content: A group of roughly 60 individuals were arrested outside the US Capitol yesterday evening after breaching a police line of bike racks and moving toward steps leading to the Capitol Rotunda, according to the Capitol Police. The group, made up of veterans and military family members, planned a sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, as well as a military parade today, according to a news release from organizers. A group of approximately 75 protesters were demonstrating peacefully at the Supreme Court, just across the street from the US Capitol, according to a statement from the Capitol Police. As the group was leaving the area, officers began establishing a perimeter of bike racks to keep the protesters away from the Capitol. 'A few people pushed the bike rack down and illegally crossed the police line while running towards the Rotunda Steps,' the Capitol Police said. 'Our officers immediately blocked the group and began making arrests.' Police said: 'All will be charged with unlawful demonstration and crossing a police line. Additional charges for some will include assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.' The protest was organized by two advocacy groups — About Face: Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. The brief sit-in followed a rally and press conference, according to the organizers' news release. 'We want a future where we invest in care for veterans, in health care, and in education, not where we spend $50 million on a parade,' said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, an Army combat veteran and organizing director of About Face: Veterans Against the War, in a statement. Update: Date: 44 min ago Title: Here's where "No Kings" protests are expected to take place across the country today Content: Millions of Americans are expected to attend protests today in what organizers predict will be the strongest display of opposition to President Donald Trump's administration since he took office in January. More than 2,000 demonstrations across all 50 states have been planned through the 'No Kings' movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to Trump's military parade tonight celebrating the 250th anniversary of the US Army — which coincides with his 79th birthday. Update: Date: 2 min ago Title: Many GOP senators aren't attending Trump's military parade and one says he would've "recommended against" it Content: The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said he would've advised against hosting a big military parade in Washington, DC — an unease with the event reflected by some of his fellow Senate Republicans. 'I would have recommended against the parade,' Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told CNN when asked for his views on the event. Wicker, the chamber's top Republican with oversight of the military, said he would be out of town attending the Paris Air Show during the parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's birthday. Most of the GOP senators surveyed by CNN this week said they did not plan to attend: • Senate Majority Leader John Thune won't be in DC for the parade. Asked about spending some $45 million on it at a time when many Republicans are demanding government austerity, he said: 'There are a lot of people who believe that's a cause worth celebrating.' • An aide to Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso said that after being at the White House twice this week, the senator would be back in Wyoming celebrating the Army's 250th birthday and Flag Day with his constituents. • Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, said he would miss the parade. 'Come on guys, we have lot of stuff to do. We have lots of parades in Washington,' he said. • Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas will also be at the air show in Paris, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma will be home celebrating his wedding anniversary, though he said he 'would love to see it.' • Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, John Kennedy of Louisianna and Chuck Grassley all won't be there. One Republican with whom CNN spoke — Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall — told reporters Thursday he plans to attend the parade.
New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Cities Nationwide Brace for Day of Protests
The tremors of political unrest that shook Los Angeles and several American cities this week have stirred a range of emotions in people — pride, disgust, fear, hope. In interviews with voters on Thursday, one sentiment that transcended political affiliation seemed to be uncertainty. Some of President Trump's voters said they did not support what they were seeing now: a show of force that exceeds his electoral mandate. Some of those who did not support Mr. Trump were not sure that they liked what they were seeing either. They expressed pride in the throngs of demonstrators marching peacefully against deportation policies that they see as cruel and indecent. But at the same time, those voters said the violent incidents that have accompanied some of the protests were counterproductive and shameful. — Jeremy W. Peters 'I'm proud of L.A.' Annabelle Collins, 36, Mercedes, Texas Image Credit... Annabelle Collins During the presidential campaign last year, Annabelle Collins was torn. In her day job, she helps families at a school district program for migrants, who often move seasonally for agriculture jobs. Many of those families have become fearful of the Trump administration's raids, and she saw how they were still traumatized from what they suffered in their home countries. Recently, she helped organize a free clothing drive for children at a department store, but many people were afraid to come out. At the same time, though, her husband is a border parol agent, and his stories have led her to believe that illegal border crossings need to be tamped down. She ended up voting for Kamala Harris, she said. When Mr. Trump was elected, she thought his administration would target only unauthorized immigrants with criminal backgrounds, but now, she said, she believes that ICE is focusing on Latinos more generally. 'I'm proud of L.A.,' she said of the protests. Ms. Collins said she doesn't like to see violence at the demonstrations. 'But sometimes it's like, is that what we need to make a statement or to have people listen?' she said. 'I don't know, and I do struggle with that. There is a lot of passion behind these protests, because people are tired. I would love for it to be peaceful and to make an impact, but will it?' — Christina Morales 'If you are here illegally, the government has the right to go after you.' Edward Padron, 67, Brownsville, Texas Image Credit... Edward Padron Edward Padron, a locksmith who left the Democratic Party as a young man, said the images of ICE agents arresting immigrants at workplaces may appear 'harsh.' But he said the arrests are the right thing to do to protect the nation's legal system. 'They are enforcing the law,' Mr. Padron said. 'The laws have always been there — that if you are here illegally, the government has the right to go after you.' While he agrees with enforcing immigration laws, he said the government should have a program to replace workers in key industries, like construction and farming, who are being deported. He would like to see something like the Bracero Program, a World War II-era agreement that allowed Mexican citizens to work on American farms and in related jobs for a fixed period of time. 'Somebody has to do those jobs, and Americans don't want them,' he said. — Edgar Sandoval To protest 'is our right.' Clifford Eugene, 74, Lacombe, La. Image Credit... Clifford Eugene As Clifford Eugene watched protests ballooning in Los Angeles this week, he was reminded of the demonstrations and sit-ins he witnessed as a middle-school student in New Orleans during the Civil Rights Movement. To Mr. Eugene, a retired bank examiner for the Treasury Department, protests in various cities are part of an enduring tradition of civil disobedience in response to social injustices. 'It is our most immediate way of disagreeing with government policy,' he said. 'It is our right.' He said he thought Mr. Trump's use of the military to quell demonstrations was 'overkill,' intended to generate publicity, score points with his base, and distract attention from his feud with Elon Musk and the domestic policy bill. The military parade in Washington on Saturday — celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary and held on Mr. Trump's 79th birthday — bothered him the most, he said. Mr. Eugene, who served for 12 years in the U.S. Navy, said the president had a long history of disparaging service members and veterans, and should not be allowed to use them as props. 'This feels like a tactic used by dictators in Russia or North Korea,' he said. — Audra D. S. Burch 'How did you not see this coming?' Brian Kozlowski, 40, Orlando, Fla. Image Credit... Brian Kozlowski Brian D. Kozlowski, a lawyer who supports Mr. Trump, said on Thursday that the president responded appropriately to the protests in Los Angeles. 'It was necessary, given the riots,' he said. 'If you're the governor of a state and you're not cooperating with the law and federal agents, who are then getting attacked by citizens of the state,' he said, 'then at that point, the federal government has every right to step in.' 'I don't know what world you live in where you think you can attack a law enforcement officer,' he added. The demonstrations in Los Angeles were generally peaceful, but there were pockets of violence, including protesters who kicked and threw objects at law enforcement vehicles, and officers have used tear gas. Mr. Kozlowski said it appeared to him that Gov. Gavin Newsom of California was playing politics with the protests, allowing them to continue without requesting help from the National Guard so that he could cast himself as a foil to Mr. Trump. 'It certainly seems like there's a lot of politically motivated decision-making taking place — or lack of decision-making,' he said. Mr. Kozlowski said Americans should not be surprised that the Trump administration was following through on aggressive immigration enforcement, since Mr. Trump promised during the election campaign to do so. 'How did you not see this coming?' he asked. — Patricia Mazzei 'There's always fear that comes with going to a protest.' Thien Doan, 36, Orange, Calif. Image Credit... Thien Doan Thien Doan was born in the United States to parents who were refugees from Vietnam. He grew up surrounded by immigrants, some documented, some not. He's worked with them in restaurants and attended their children's quinceañeras. 'Most of these people are not violent criminals,' he said. 'They've welcomed me into their homes.' After a number of immigration raids in Southern California last week, Mr. Doan, a software engineer, felt the need to speak out. He headed to a protest on Sunday in Santa Ana, Calif. Unauthorized immigrants 'need people there that understand,' he said, 'and are willing to put themselves in front of harm's way to protect them.' Mr. Doan, who voted for Kamala Harris last year, said he expected to continue to demonstrate against the federal crackdown as long as the immigration raids and deportations continue. But it would not be without some sense of trepidation. 'There's always fear that comes with going to a protest,' said Mr. Doan, who has attended other protests before. 'You don't know if you're going to get injured, get arrested or whatever. 'But I feel like, at the same time, if I don't stand up now, I might regret it later down the line. And I don't want to be that person that regrets not trying to help the people around me.' — Laurel Rosenhall 'I saw a lot of flags being run down the street by different countries. That was disturbing to me.' Naomi Villalba, 75, Dallas Image Credit... Naomi Villalba As a Mexican American woman who received U.S. citizenship as a teenager, Naomi Villalba's views on immigration have always been clear: She believes that people need to come into the country legally, and if they are undocumented, to work on getting their papers. Ms. Villalba likes Mr. Trump's policies on immigration, and believes that all demonstrations would be more effective if they were peaceful. 'I did see that there was chaos in that city,' she said, speaking of Los Angeles, 'and I saw a lot of flags being run down the street by different countries. That was disturbing to me because they came in very ready to fight.' She said she was worried that the protests were beginning to emulate those in 2020, during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, which in some cases devolved into destructive riots. Ms. Villalba, who retired from a career at Southwest Airlines and now works part-time as a substitute teacher, thought that Mr. Trump's decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles reflected lessons that the administration learned from 2020. 'I think it's quelling it somewhat' she said of the violence, 'and I'm hoping that we will not be talking about this in another week or so.' — Christina Morales 'I thought we had gotten past a lot of our bigotry.' Erwin McKone, 55, of Flint, Mich. Image Credit... Erwin McKone Erwin McKone, who works in sales for an agribusiness company, describes himself as a centrist voter. He supported Mr. Trump last November mainly because he wanted tighter border controls. He had hoped federal agents would focus on deporting people who 'are up to no good.' But Mr. McKone has been dismayed by the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, which he called 'indiscriminate' and 'cruel.' And Mr. McKone said he thought the president deployed National Guard troops and Marines to handle protests in Los Angeles 'just because people want to walk the streets and question policies.' Mr. McKone wants the president to increase the number of visas issued to temporary workers so they fill jobs that have historically drawn people to immigrate illegally. 'We have played a role in this,' Mr. McKone said, adding that in the past, he had employed unauthorized immigrants. 'We've allowed illegals in to work in our country for years.' 'The way he's doing things is appealing to the racist side of America,' he said. 'I thought we had gotten past a lot of our bigotry and our racist tendencies.' — Ernesto Londoño
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
JOHN YOO: 'No Kings Day' protests: Trump has constitutional, legal power to keep the peace
Protesters are gathering Saturday in hundreds of cities and towns for a "day of defiance" of the Trump administration. They have a First Amendment right to voice their criticism of the nation's policies. But if the protests escalate from speech to violence, President Donald Trump has the constitutional and legal power to use troops to restore basic law and order. Anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles in the last week have put the need for decisive presidential action on full display. Television news has shown scenes of violence that seeks to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law. Protesters have launched riots to block and forcibly enter federal buildings, attacked federal officers, and prevented DHS agents from carrying out arrests. They have shut down freeways and blocked traffic. The riots have spread to other cities, such as Austin, Chicago, New York and Denver. Video of the mayhem on TV has shown obvious efforts to stop DHS from apprehending and removing illegal aliens under federal immigration laws. In response, President Donald Trump this week called up 2,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Rather than welcome federal assistance to restore order, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom greeted the troops with hostility. He declared the deployment "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act" and accused President Trump of undertaking "the acts of a dictator, not a President," and dared federal authorities to arrest him. Contrary to the inflammatory rhetoric of Newsom and other California officials, the initial military deployment rests well within the president's powers. Trump declared that the mission of the military units is to "temporarily protect" federal agents in Los Angeles "and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests . . . are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." So far, Los Angeles 2025 has not yet collapsed into the chaos of Los Angeles 1992. The administration today is not replacing the states' responsibility to maintain basic public safety. Instead, Trump is enforcing federal immigration law; in fact, the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States (2012) has declared that only federal officials may carry out immigration law and policy. The Supreme Court has long recognized the presidential power to use the military to protect federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law. In In re Neagle (1890), the Supreme Court upheld the use of force by a federal marshal who killed an attacker of a Supreme Court Justice. Even though no law authorized the use of force, the Court ordered the marshal freed: We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the government of the United States may, by means of physical force, exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace. Because of federal supremacy over the matters entrusted to it by the Constitution, the president has the power to protect the security of the officials who carry it out. In the face of nineteenth-century labor strife, the Supreme Court expanded Neagle to include not just the protection of federal personnel, but also their functions. In 1894, union organizers and workers sought to block all trains using Pullman railcars, effectively halting all trains nationwide. President Grover Cleveland ordered U.S. troops to prevent the obstruction of trains carrying the mail. In In re Debs (1895), the Court approved these measures: "The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights intrusted by the constitution to its care. The federal government could use even the military, if necessary. "If the emergency arises, the army of the nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the nation, to compel obedience to its laws," Justice Brewer concluded. Congress ratified this authority in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to call the National Guard into federal service not just in cases of invasion or rebellion, but also when he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." This fits within the exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids the use of the military to engage in domestic law enforcement except when "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." The president's use of the military to protect federal personnel and facilities is defensive in nature. Force will only arise if rioters attack. But President Trump has the power to convert this mission from one of defense into actively carrying out immigration law detentions and overcoming obstruction of justice. Congress granted this authority to intervene, even without the agreement of governors, under the Insurrection Act of 1807. For the Act to apply, disorder must rise to the level of an "insurrection" that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." Under this law, Dwight Eisenhower sent the armed forces into Little Rock when Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus refused to desegregate the city's public schools. President George H.W. Bush invoked the law, at California Gov. Pete Wilson's request, to send troops to restore order in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots. President Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act should disorder spread beyond the attacks on ICE and DHS officers and facilities to a broader collapse of law and order. Critics will suggest that there is a racial motive afoot because Trump is allegedly targeting illegal aliens, their minority communities, and blue inner-cities. But the power to protect the federal government and enforce the law is color blind. Presidents used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Congress originally banned the use of federal troops for law enforcement because of the South's demand to end the Union's occupation after the Civil War (the end of Reconstruction is one of Washington, D.C.'s greatest failures). If critics want the federal government to have the power to enforce civil rights laws against recalcitrant states, they also must concede to President Trump the power to carry out federal immigration laws. If protesters, California officials, and Democratic leaders want to change immigration policy, the answer lies not in obstructing a federal government carrying out an agenda ratified in the last election. Instead, they should rely on the tools bequeathed by the Founders: Congress's authority over funding, legislation, and oversight, the national political system, and, ultimately, elections.
