In this week’s Film Room, we break down party submissions following the House hearing on Final Approval.
On April 14, 2025, Plaintiffs, Defendant Conferences and the NCAA submitted a joint supplemental brief in support of Final Approval of the proposed House settlement.
The parties reiterated their position that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. They also offered responses to several items discussed at last week’s hearing, specifically:
- Releases of claims by future student-athletes. Responding to the Court’s questions regarding the adequacy of notice to future student-athletes, the parties “agreed to adjust the release provisions of the Settlement Agreement, consistent with their intent and representations during the Final Approval Hearing, to clarify that future Division 1 athletes will not release their injunctive relief claims until they have received notice and an opportunity to object to the continuation of the Settlement” (Brief at 2). Proposed edits to the settlement agreement clarify that future student-athletes (i) are to be provided notice of the injunctive terms of the settlement at or before the time they enroll at an institution and (ii) have, after receiving notice, 60 days to object before their potential claims are released.
- Roster limits. The parties restated their position that the imposition of the proposed roster limits is fair and provides no bar to settlement approval. Regarding Judge Wilken’s suggestion that roster size changes be grandfathered in, the parties indicated that such a process would cause significant disruption. To that end, the parties noted institutional efforts to date to prepare for the potential implementation of the expected roster limits and the resulting enrollment/transfer decisions by student-athletes that followed from those actions.
In their papers, the parties argued that the settlement “clears the way for many NIL transactions with third parties and submits the remainder to a fairer and more transparent review and enforcement process,” and “[i]n so doing, the settlement opens the door for greater competition between schools, which is exactly what the underlying antitrust lawsuits seek to accomplish” (Brief at 1). Beyond that, third-party NIL is not addressed.
Certain objectors made responsive submissions on April 15, 2025, reiterating arguments offered at last week’s hearing.
We should soon learn whether the settlement is acceptable to the Court.
[View source.]
