UB legal experts: ‘Watershed moment’ for collegiate athletics and athletes sits before federal justice

BUFFALO, N.Y. – The landmark House v. NCAA antitrust case awaiting action before a federal district court justice will likely dramatically affect the already quickly changing world of NCAA sports, according to two University at Buffalo School of Law professors.

“This is a settlement to watch,” says Christine P. Bartholomew, a UB law professor with expertise in class actions, antitrust law, consumer protection and other subjects. “If approved, the settlement would usher in significant changes.” 

The multibillion-dollar proposed settlement would resolve three different antitrust lawsuits. If approved, the settlement would:

• Compensate college athletes who played before 2021 — the year a Supreme Court decision allowed players to earn money for their name, image, or likeness (NIL) rights. 
• Allow schools to directly pay players through revenue sharing and impose roster limits, a significant change in practice. Schools have primarily managed team sizes through scholarship rather than roster limits. 
• Establish a clearinghouse to vet NIL deals in excess of $600 to ensure that they have a valid business purpose and represent fair market value – an effort to prevent direct “pay to play.”

“The outcome of this case may ultimately redefine the relationship between student-athletes and the institutions they represent,” says Helen “Nellie” Drew, professor of practice in sports law and director of the UB Center for the Advancement of Sport.

“If approved, this settlement would be a watershed moment in collegiate athletics with far-reaching implications for universities, current athletes, and future generations of student-athletes,” says Bartholomew, who also serves as the law school’s vice dean for academic affairs.

As with any class action settlement, judicial consent is required. 

Thirty-four objections have been logged before federal district court Judge Claudia Wilken challenging the approval of the settlement, according to Drew. To date, Wilken has considered 14 of the objections, focusing primarily upon three issues: the fairness of the planned switch from scholarship limits to roster limits; the process by which an athlete’s NIL value will be established; and how future collegiate athletes’ NIL will be managed. 

Objectors argue roster limits invite cuts to existing rosters and unnecessarily cap opportunities for walk-on players, such as limiting football rosters to 105 athletes, when the average roster in 2024 was 128.

One objector, Gannon Flynn, a student athlete on University of Utah’s swim team, testified that over 5,300 athletes could lose roster spots or worse, if schools opted to cut entire teams.

“Cuts are a real risk, given the settlement’s emphasis on the revenue-generating sports,” says Drew.

At a recent hearing, Wilken proposed modifying the settlement to “grandfather” in athletes over a period of time, while moving to the roster limits.  

Drew also has concerns about the clearinghouse provision that would vet NIL deals over $600 to ensure these arrangements have valid business purpose and fair market value.

“It is not clear what authority, if any, the clearinghouse will have to alter or disapprove NIL deals or even discipline athletes and schools,” says Drew.  

Much of the media focus regarding the settlement highlights its potential massive payout. The settlement would require the NCAA and the conferences to pay $2.8 billion to current and former athletes over a 10-year period. However, future athletes – some now in elementary school – would also be bound by the settlement, with the potential to file legal objections to it in the future. 

“Future settlement terms invite due process challenges,” says Bartholomew. Wilken seems to agree, voicing concerns during the hearing regarding binding these future athletes to the settlement and noting that this class of people has not yet been identified, and as such, do not have counsel in this case. 

“Would the settlement have to be re-examined every year?” asks Bartholomew.

“There are still so many uncertainties beyond the scope of the expansive settlement,” says Drew.

Among them, she says, is that Wilken has yet to address the Title IX ramifications of the settlement, which would provide the vast majority of the payout to football and men’s and women’s basketball.

Wilken instructed the parties to address the issues presented and report back next week.  While the judge seemed optimistic that the settlement could be finalized, a clear path forward was not evident by the end of the hearing. Consequently, athletic departments across the country remain in limbo with a potential massive restructuring due to the settlement occurring on July 1, according to both UB scholars.

“Athletic departments across the country continue to wrestle with the potential ramifications of the settlement as we await the final approval,” says Drew.