The recent approval of the House v. NCAA settlement is encountering its first legal challenge, corroborated by CBS Sports. A group of female athletes intends to appeal the court’s decision, asserting that the damage payments contravene Title IX’s stipulations for gender equity.
The settlement is designed to distribute $2.8 billion in back payments to former athletes; however, these funds are currently paused pending the outcome of the appeals process, as stated by NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru to CBS Sports’ Brandon Marcello. NCAA president Charlie Baker indicated to Yahoo Sports that the organization has allocated $285 million, which is ready for disbursement once court approval is granted.
While the appeal will postpone damage payments, it will not affect the rollout of revenue sharing, anticipated to commence on July 1.
Eight athletes have initiated the appeal, with at least six being former women’s sports athletes from the College of Charleston. Among them are distance runner Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt) and volleyball player Kate Johnson (Virginia). The Charleston contingent consists of Lexi Drumms, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron, and Elizabeth Arnold.
“We advocate for a settlement, just not one that is mishandled and breaches federal laws,” stated attorney John Clune in a remark to CBS Sports. “The damages calculation reflects a mistake upwards of $1.1 billion. Disbursing the funds as proposed would wreak irreversible harm on women’s sports.”
Further appeals are being led by attorney Leigh Ernst Friestedt, representing four additional female athletes.
“The House Settlement allots $2.4 billion to men and a mere $102 million to women,” Friestedt remarked. “This pronounced imbalance violates Title IX. Charlotte, Mai, Katherine, and Brooke eagerly await the chance to appeal this ruling with the 9th Circuit on behalf of millions of female student-athletes.”
Kilaru remains hopeful that the settlement will be upheld during judicial review.
“Judge Wilken devised a comprehensive ruling — spanning 76 pages,” he expressed to CBS Sports. “Her argumentation is compelling. It’s significant to note that this issue was never part of our defense during the settlement’s final approval, as typically, those challenging back damages opt out of the settlement rather than disputing it.”
But the core question before the appellate court will not solely focus on whether Judge Wilken’s conclusions were right or wrong; but rather if she ‘abused her discretion’ in approving the agreement. This discretion grants her considerable leeway in her decision-making. Thus, we remain confident that our arguments will be persuasive before the court.
The landmark House settlement plans to provide $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who missed opportunities for compensation from name, image, and likeness revenues prior to their legalization in 2021. Additionally, the settlement facilitates revenue sharing between schools and athletes for the first time.
The settlement employs a formula to disburse the funds among a broad range of athletes. Football and men’s basketball players receiving full scholarships at Power Five schools from June 15, 2016, to September 15, 2024, are set to collect 90% of the $2 billion settlement. Women’s basketball athletes will obtain 5%, while all other athletes will share the remaining 5%.
All eight athletes involved in the appeal fall within the third class, most formerly participating in volleyball or soccer at their institutions.
“The settlement implies that schools would have compensated male athletes over 90% of their revenue for the past six years, effectively ignoring Title IX,” Clune stated. “If Nike opts for that, it’s entirely their decision. Yet, should the school or a conference acting on behalf of the school try this, they’re breaching the law. There’s a choice between proportionate payments to athletes or forfeiting all federal funds — you can’t do both.”
Judge Claudia Wilken, who oversaw the case in California’s Northern District, has not closed the option for Title IX-related appeals. However, this topic wasn’t expressly deliberated in the settlement. Moreover, the applicability of Title IX to revenue-sharing funds remains a contentious issue. The Biden Department of Education previously issued guidance asserting that player compensation falls under Title IX, yet this was rescinded by the Trump administration in January.
In her approval of the settlement, Wilken asserted that the settlement itself doesn’t compel schools to act contrary to Title IX. She dismissed specific objections alleging that the agreement failed to adhere to Title IX guidelines, delegating compliance oversight to schools and governing organizations instead.
“Should schools infringe upon Title IX in their benefits and compensation provisions under the Injunctive Settlement Agreement, class members reserve the right to initiate lawsuits regarding such violations,” Wilken affirmed.
