Trio of Athlete Objections Filed Against House v. NCAA Settlement Proposal

The first athlete objections to the House v. NCAA proposal have been filed, less than a month after the 300-page document—that would pave the way for revenue-sharing—was submitted to the court. A trio of objections argued a wide range of grievances, from gender equity to antitrust issues. 

House v. NCAA, first filed in 2020, argues that athletes deserve damages for losing out on NIL (name, image, and likeness) opportunities before 2021, and that the definition of NIL should be expanded. It addresses a range of athlete compensation issues, allowing power conference schools to share up to $22 million with players, as well as pay $2.8 billion in damages in conjunction with the NCAA. But it also sets multiple restrictions, like a cap on revenue-sharing and an approval process for NIL deals of more than $600. The NCAA has said it hopes Congress will codify an approved settlement, as well as protect the NCAA from having to make any future reforms. 

So far, no athletes have objected to the general concepts of back-damages and revenue-sharing, but have taken issue with many of the specifics.