The three athletes whose lawsuits prompted the pending $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement are calling for major structural changes beyond those established by the pending settlement, including allowing college athletes to become independent players. To enable collective bargaining through association.
The three athletes — Grant House, Sedona Prince and Nia Harrison — issued their pleas in a Dec. 2 letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkin, who is overseeing the settlement.
Although the letter praised the terms of the settlement, House, Prince and Harrison warned that without player representation in negotiations with their schools and conferences, players would “inevitably be in a weaker position” and the industry ” will continue to be embroiled in litigation”. He called on the court to lend “its immutability” to players’ efforts to negotiate collectively in the future through the players’ association.
The NCAA and its schools are staunch opponents of treating athletes as employees, which is generally required to make collective bargaining agreements legally binding. Judge Wilkin is unlikely to play a role in creating or blessing the players’ union, but the players’ letter could have an impact on how he views the settlement’s long-term success.
Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney representing the class-action plaintiffs, told ESPN that he does not think the letter, provided to ESPN by athletes.org, is an attempt to organize and advocate for college athletes. A year group trying to do that would be derailed. The process
College officials are lobbying Congress for legislation that would prevent players from being considered employees and forming unions, while several attempts to unionize players continue through the court system.
A hearing to finalize the deal is scheduled for early April.
The athletes, all three of whom are plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits included in the settlement, expressed their concerns in a letter to Vulcan.
The players wrote that we need a players’ association.
House, Prince and Harrison are all members of Athletes.org, which is among several emerging organizations that hope to provide official representation for athletes in the future even if the NCAA successfully bans athletes from unionizing.
Wilkin in September initially approved a settlement in the House v. NCAA case that would pay former players about $2.8 billion in damages and establish a new system for schools to pay their players directly starting next year. Under the terms of the 10-year deal, each school will be able to set aside more than $20 million per year for player compensation — a number that is expected to increase on an annual basis.
House, Prince, and Harrison wrote that they still supported the terms of the settlement and saw it as “an important development,” but their letter focused on the professionalization of college sports, rather than a lasting peace. It marks the next front in the ongoing war. The college sports industry hopes an expensive deal will come.
Kessler, the co-lead attorney for all Division I athletes in the class-action lawsuits, told ESPN that the players advised him of the letter to Vulcan and said they had no problem with his decision.
“I think this settlement is incredible for college sports, but it doesn’t solve every problem in the world,” Kessler said. “The fact that they might even need a players’ association is a valid point. I don’t have a problem with that.”
The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Leaders of the NCAA and its most powerful conferences have said they are hopeful that the settlement, combined with proposed federal legislation that would give them some protection from future antitrust lawsuits, will allow schools to play college sports. will help regain some control over the industry.
The settlement includes provisions that would limit how much each team can pay its players and prevent boosters from overpaying players as a recruiting incentive, which athletic directors and conference commissioners says that it is necessary to maintain a competitive balance.
In professional sports, these types of caps are set by collective bargaining agreements between the league and the players’ association. House, Prince and Harrison wrote that any future system for college sports that does not give players a substantial voice in the decision-making process is bound to create more courtroom battles.
“While professional leagues involve players in these decisions through their respective players’ associations, the college system continues to prevent our players’ associations from representing us at decision-making tables,” he wrote.
Vulcan is not obligated to respond to the athletes, but their concerns could inform whether she decides to give final approval to the settlement. A group of state lawmakers also publicly expressed concern last week about how the settlement conflicts with laws they’ve written about the rights of college athletes to earn money in their states. .
Athletes and other parties have until the end of January to file formal objections to the terms of the settlement.