House Settlement Nears Finalization

House v NCAA Updates:

Judge Leaning Towards Approval with Changes: Claudia Wilken indicated she's likely to approve the settlement if two main things are changed:

• Roster Limit Phase-In: Either gradually introduce the new roster limits or protect current athletes already on teams ("grandfather them in"). 
• Future Athlete Agreement: Adjust the wording about how future athletes are bound to the 10-year settlement.

Judge Has Minor Concerns: While the judge thinks the settlement is generally good, she has a few remaining questions for the lawyers to answer within a week. The judge also wants more information on how future college athletes can disagree with the settlement terms after they enroll. The judge wants changes to the part of the settlement that would force athletes who aren't even in college yet to follow the rules for the next 10 years without a chance to disagree later.

Worries About Lost Roster Spots: Some people who spoke in court are worried the settlement could lead to thousands of athletes losing their spots on college teams. The judge wants lawyers to reconsider a part of the deal that would limit how many athletes can be on a team's roster for each sport.

Scholarship Rules Changing: The current NCAA rules limit how many scholarships a team can give. If the settlement is approved, this rule will go away, meaning schools could give full scholarships to all their athletes. To prevent richer schools from hoarding all the best players, the NCAA wants to limit the total number of players on each team instead of limiting scholarships. This could force teams to cut current players.

Judge Suggests Protecting Current Athletes: The judge suggested that any athlete currently on a team should be allowed to stay, even if it goes over the new roster limit. She thinks this would be a good gesture. While the judge can't legally order specific changes, her suggestions can influence whether she approves the deal.

Plaintiffs Okay with Judge's Suggestion: The lawyers representing the athletes said they support their settlement and it's up to the NCAA if they want to protect current athletes' roster spots. The NCAA's lawyer said he needs to talk to his clients about the roster limit suggestion but is still hopeful the settlement will be approved.

Concerns About Unequal Payments: Some people raised concerns that the $2.8 billion in damages might not be fairly divided, with male athletes (especially in football and basketball) expected to get most of the  money.

Argument About New Antitrust Violation: Others argued that the settlement itself creates a new problem by limiting how much schools can spend on athletes, like an illegal salary cap.

Collective Bargaining Not Part of This Case: The judge said that while athletes negotiating salaries through a union might be a good idea, she doesn't have the power to rule on that in this case.

Hoping for Final Approval Soon: The lawyers for the athletes are optimistic that the judge will give her final approval to the deal in the next few weeks.

Plan to Pay Players This Summer Still On Track: The lawyers are confident the judge will make her decision in time for schools to start paying their players directly in July as planned.