A New Twist in the NCAA Antitrust Settlement: Judge Orders Revisions
The ongoing saga of the NCAA’s $2.8 billion antitrust settlement took a dramatic turn as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken mandated a re-evaluation of the settlement terms relating to roster limits, raising questions about the future of college sports. This decision comes as a potential disruption to the plans of numerous schools that have already begun implementing the changes.
Judge Wilken, in her decisive order, emphasized that the preliminary approval of the settlement should not have been misconstrued as guaranteed final approval. “Any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA members schools’ own making,” she stated, dismissing concerns about the chaos that revisiting the settlement might cause.
The lawsuit settlement initially proposed the removal of scholarship limits, replacing them with roster limits, potentially impacting walk-on athletes and those on partial scholarships. The schools, anticipating settlement approval, had started making roster adjustments, cutting players who then had to seek new teams.
Despite the upheaval, Wilken stressed that the hasty moves by the involved parties were premature. The judge has given both sides a 14-day period to return to mediation, aiming to address the concerns she raised.
As the clock ticks toward the intended enforcement date of July 1, schools and athletes are left in limbo. The uncertainty looms large, especially with the upcoming football season, where it remains unclear whether teams will adhere to the old average roster size of 128 or the proposed limit of 105.
Steve Berman, one of the plaintiff attorneys, expressed his intent to resolve the court’s issues with the NCAA. “We will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns,” Berman said, noting the possibility of returning to trial if no resolution is reached.
In response, the NCAA and the five defendant conferences issued a joint statement, affirming their commitment to the settlement’s approval, which they believe will enhance opportunities and fairness for student-athletes.
Representing over 190 athletes, attorney Steven Molo welcomed the judge’s decision as a victory, highlighting the “tremendous unfairness” of the proposed roster limits.
Judge Wilken’s directive aims to ensure fairness across the board, quoting a previous ruling that the settlement must “treat class members equitably relative to each other.” She suggested a phased implementation, allowing current athletes to retain their positions to minimize disruption.
While the full impact on roster spots remains uncertain, estimates suggest thousands could be affected. The ruling underscores the judge’s concern for the athletes’ welfare amid the vast financial stakes involved.
As schools scramble to prepare for the 2025-26 season, this development injects further uncertainty into an already complex landscape, with the possibility of a trial still on the horizon.
