Latest news with #JudgeWilken
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
NCAA Sends Clear Message About Athlete Pay and Roster Limits
NCAA Sends Clear Message About Athlete Pay and Roster Limits originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The NCAA is looking to make some changes to its scholarship rules and roster limits in the upcoming 2025-26 season. If approved, the House vs. NCAA settlement will allow schools to start paying athletes directly, along with dictating how many players will be on each roster. Advertisement With the new set of rules, schools will be able to offer scholarships to every player on their roster. Previously, there was a roster cap in place based on the sport. This is huge because it changes how each school builds their roster. Sports like football, basketball, and volleyball only offer full scholarships, but this rule allows for partial scholarships. The amount of space on the roster would not be unlimited but rather increased. Judge Claudia Wilken held a hearing on April 7, but had several concerns about the proposed rule. That was the projected date for the long-awaited settlement to be approved. Wilken made a preliminary approval in October but has delayed the final ruling twice because of concerns about the proposal. If Wilkens does not approve of the settlement, it could be sent to trial. For schools, there is still a chance for approval at the state level. The settlement comes in at $2.8 billion, with players looking to participate in a share of $20.5 million from the media revenues being offered to each school. This is set to begin on July 1. Related: Former Ivy League Star Turns Heads With Groundbreaking $6 Million NIL Deal House v. NCAA started in 2020 after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and TCU women's basketball player Sedona Price filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and the five power conferences. The lawsuit sought to get Division I players paid who played before the current NIL era. Advertisement Related: NIL Has Killed College Football as we Knew it For now, this is still just a proposal that is waiting for further action. It could extraordinarily change with how schools handle athletics. Division I schools would have even more on the table than NIL money. Will schools stick to the NCAA guidelines if this proposal is approved? This could change college Division I sports in the long run. Either way, it's in the process of happening. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on May 31, 2025, where it first appeared.
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
NCAA v. House settlement approved, allowing colleges to directly pay athletes
Almost five years after House v. NCAA was filed in Oakland, California, Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to a settlement Friday night, a decision that will drastically change college sports again, allowing schools to pay athletes directly for the first time. The settlement resolves three antitrust suits against the NCAA — House, Carter and Hubbard — all of which challenged past restrictions on athlete compensation. The agreement was hashed out by attorneys for the plaintiffs and six defendants: The NCAA, SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12. It includes almost $2.8 billion in back damages for former and current athletes (and their lawyers).
Washington Post
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
In dispute over college roster limits, a trial could loom if judge doesn't approve latest proposal
The final arguments over the contentious issue of roster limits have been filed in the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement and it is once again up to a federal judge to determine the next move. In the eyes of one attorney, the choice is simple. Either U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken signs off on the latest proposal or it's on to a trial that would throw the college athletics into chaos for the foreseeable future.
Associated Press
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
In dispute over college roster limits, a trial could loom if judge doesn't approve latest proposal
The final arguments over the contentious issue of roster limits have been filed in the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement and it is once again up to a federal judge to determine the next move. In the eyes of one attorney, the choice is simple. Either U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken signs off on the latest proposal or it's on to a trial that would throw the college athletics into chaos for the foreseeable future. 'She made it very clear,' said attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who represented thousands of players in the case against the NCAA and the nation's biggest conferences. 'She said, 'You have one chance to fix it.' I believe we 100% fixed it. If she disagrees, we go to trial.' Sent back to the bargaining table last month by Wilken, attorneys on both sides agreed to a proposal that would allow players who were cut due to the expected implementation of roster limits to regain spots on their previous teams or move to new ones; either way, they would not count against the newly implemented roster caps. Athletes objecting to this solution argued that the damage has already been done when their spots were lost. They urged the judge to reject the proposal and Friday was the deadline for the latest round of filings. Wilken is expected to rule soon — perhaps by next week — on whether to accept the latest proposal or put the possibility of a trial that likely wouldn't begin until at least next fall on the table. 'If they don't appropriately deal with how they harmed the current students, I would be surprised if she approved it,' said Mike Rueda, who leads the sports and entertainment division at the law firm Withers. 'That was her issue previously, that they prematurely took steps before the settlement was approved.' One brief filed on behalf of athletes objecting to the solution spoke bluntly about that harm. It noted that 'our firm has continued to receive emails and phone calls from class members and their parents telling us of student-athletes who would be harmed by the immediate implementation of roster limits. Many communications have included words like 'unfair,' 'blindsided,' 'chaos,' 'harm,' and 'disservice.'' In initially rejecting the roster-limits part of the settlement, Wilken suggested players be 'grandfathered in' to their spots through the rest of their college careers. The roster limits in the overall plan would cut the sizes of teams but would make everyone on those teams eligible for a full scholarship. In women's swimming, for instance, this would eliminate up to 10 spots per team but could add as many as 16 scholarship opportunities. The plaintiffs' attorneys argue this is just one of many benefits that would come out of a settlement, the core of which is designed to allow schools to directly pay players for use of their name, image and likeness, while also offering around $2.8 billion in damages to players who attended before being able to fully partake in NIL. They say their solution puts the thousands of athletes who could be harmed by roster caps — many of them walk-ons or partial-scholarship players — in no worse a situation than they were in before they were cut: They have a chance to compete for — but no guarantee they'll earn — a roster spot that does not count against any prescribed limits from the settlement. But the attorneys for the objectors wrote that they continue 'to hear from many athletes and their families whose lives are being turned upside down as a result of the implementation of roster caps.' Among the resolutions they propose: — Players who were cut be restored to their previous team even if they had already transferred to another school. — An arbitration system if there's disagreement over whether a player was cut due to roster limits, which is forbidden under the new proposal, or for another reason. — No release of claims for possible damages due to being cut as the schools prepared for a settlement they thought would be approved. Kessler said he was certain the objectors wouldn't agree to virtually anything the plaintiffs and defendants proposed. 'They say when you're a hammer, you're looking for a nail, and these are objectors, so they're looking for things to keep objecting to,' he said. 'We have solved this problem, and that's the thing they should be recognizing.' ___ AP college sports:
