An advocacy group for college athletes, the National College Players Association (NCPA), has publicly announced its opposition to the $2.8 billion settlement agreement of antitrust litigation involving the NCAA and major college conferences. The NCPA argues that the proposed settlement, known as the House settlement, could potentially limit the earning potential of athletes.
The NCPA claims that the House settlement aims to eliminate booster-funded collectives that currently provide significant payments to college athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses. Executive director Ramogi Huma expressed concerns that the settlement could negatively impact both current and future college athletes, including those as young as fourth grade.
A federal court hearing is scheduled to take place where a judge in California will consider the plaintiffs' request for preliminary approval of the deal, which includes $2.78 billion in damages for former and current college athletes. Despite the pending approval, challenges to the settlement may still arise before final approval is granted in the coming months.
The NCPA is actively working to have the settlement rejected to encourage the parties involved to reach a fair resolution or proceed to trial. The group opposes the deal due to provisions that could allow conferences to cease revenue-sharing if athletes are classified as employees with the right to collectively bargain with schools or leagues.
Sports law professor Marc Edelman commended the settlement agreement as a significant attempt to reform athlete compensation but also acknowledged the NCPA's valid concerns regarding revenue-sharing caps and restrictions on third-party compensation from boosters.
Huma and the NCPA have long been advocates for reform in college sports and increased benefits for athletes. The NCPA has previously filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, seeking employee status for USC athletes and its conference. A similar case involving Dartmouth basketball players has resulted in a regional director ruling in favor of employee classification, allowing the players to vote on unionization.
The NCPA argues that the settlement fails to address potential cuts to revenue sports and could lead to a reduction in athletic scholarships offered by wealthier programs.
For more college football news, follow the latest updates on AP college football.
