Justin Murphy

The more I think about the House v. NCAA settlement, the more I realize that there is only 1 good component, and it's very temporary. The positive piece of the deal is the damages to athletes going back to 2016 in the amount of roughly $2.8 billion. You could argue this is a discount on what's owed and that it's not being properly apportioned to athletes, but it's a hedge on the risk of moving forward with litigation, which could also drag out for a long time. However, we can all safely assume that the settlement will be appealed, at which time this payout will likely be stayed. So, the 1 good piece of the settlement could be delayed for a while. I can't think of any other "win" for the plaintiffs (i.e. the athlete class). Schools will be able to pay them directly, which they could do without the settlement. Payments from schools will be capped, which wouldn't be true absent the settlement. There is no floor. Payments not made from the school but instead paid by collectives will be subject to a fair market analysis. All of this is purely intended to reduce the amount of money that athletes are currently receiving. Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel gave in on roster limits and agreed to lobby Congress with the NCAA. I'm really struggling to figure out how this settlement is anything but downright ugly for athletes. Not only the athletes current competing in college athletics, but the athletes who will compete in the future and had no say in the settlement.