Judge halts $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement in its final stretch (2025)

New roster limits would hurt too many athletes, the judge found in delaying approval of the deal.

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) —A federal judge on Wednesday declined to approve a $2.8 billion settlement in an antitrust suit brought by current and former athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association and some of the nation's biggest conferences, citing concerns that provisions on roster limits could force many athletes to lose their spot on their team.

“Because the settlement agreement is not fair and reasonable to the significant number of class members whose roster spots will be or have been taken away because of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement, the court cannot approve the settlement agreement in its current form,” U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in a 5-page order.

Thelandmark $2.8 billion settlement would have affected every corner of college athletics in the coming months, with a final settlement hearing landing before Wilken earlier this month.

The NCAA and the nation's biggestconferences were set to pay$2.8 billion in damages to both current and former playersover the next 10 years, according to the settlement. If approved, colleges would have been allowed to compensate their athletes in all sports beginning July 1, 2025,with an annual allowance of around$20 million to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness.

The NCAA also proposed new roster limits for schoolsthat choose to comply with the conditions of the deal. While the roster limitations couldincrease the amount of scholarships that colleges can offer, The Associated Press reported they could also resultin the loss of 10,000 or more spots in "non-revenue” sports, like Olympic sports, throughout the NCAA by restrictingthe number of walk-on athletesallowed for eachteam.

The Bill Clinton appointee was clear that the inclusion of roster limits in the settlement does not prevent the court from eventually granting final approval of the settlement agreement. However, she said the harm it could cause if implemented as proposed would be too great.

Although the parties agreed some athletes “may ultimately have lost roster spots as a result of the settlement,” they argued the court should approve the settlement anyway because those class members would be able to compete for scholarships and other benefits that wouldn’t be available without the settlement.

That outcome is not fair even if many other class members may benefit from the agreement as proposed, Wilken found.

The parties acknowledged in a supplemental brief that several NCAA member schools have already started to implement roster limits and argued that further modifying the situation wouldn’t be practicable.

Wilken countered that the fact some schools were already doing it wasn’t a valid reason to approve the settlement.

“Any disruption that may occur is a problem of defendants’ and NCAA member schools’ own making. The fact that the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement should not have been interpreted as an indication that it was certain that the Court would grant final approval,” Wilken said.

The athletes' co-lead counsel Steve Berman of Hagens Berman met Wilken's order with measured optimism.

“We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns," Berman said in a statement. "If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps."

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the NCAA and defendant conferences said they were reviewing the judge’s ruling.

“Our focus continues to be on securing approval of this significant agreement, which aims to create more opportunities than ever before for student-athletes while fostering much-needed stability and fairness in college sports,” the sports organizations said in a statement.

Wilken gave the parties a chance to amend the settlement so that the athletes she mentioned won’t be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.

Wilken’s decision also delays approval of the settlement in Hubbard v. NCAA, since the parties in that case made their settlement approval contingent on the present one.

A class action once in the home stretch now finds itself on uncertain footing. Wilken also issued a tentative scheduling order Wednesday, listing a trial at a “to be determined date” sometime this year.