The NCAA is working toward a potential $2.8 billion settlement that would resolve three antitrust lawsuits, with the Big Ten Conference giving the latest approval, but it’s unclear whether a fourth lawsuit would be included in the agreement.
Fontenot v. NCAA lawyers said Wednesday they want the case to remain in federal court in Colorado, rather than move it to California and consolidate it with another antitrust case involving college sports. They said they won’t know whether their claims qualify for the settlement until all details of the proposal are known.
“In any case, they have to negotiate with us, otherwise I don’t think there will be a settlement in the end,” said George Zelks, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. “They need to include us in a settlement or get an order requiring our involvement. We are opposed to all of that.”
The NCAA and the five major college conferences, whose names are in the House v. NCAA lawsuit that is at the center of the settlement talks, have asked U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado to consolidate the Fontenot lawsuit with Carter v. NCAA, a lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers in House v. NCAA gave the defendants a deadline of Thursday to agree to a settlement.
The NCAA has already gone through two stages of a three-part approval process that must be completed by the Board of Governors.
The Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conference boards of presidents voted Tuesday to move forward with the settlement, and Big Ten presidents voted Wednesday to approve the agreement at their spring meetings in Los Angeles, according to a person with direct knowledge of the decision who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the meetings did not disclose internal discussions.
The presidents of the Southeastern Conference and Pac-12 are scheduled to meet Thursday to consider a settlement agreement.
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the NCAA would pay $2.77 billion over 10 years to former and current college athletes who were denied the right to earn revenue from endorsement and sponsorship deals from 2016 onward because of a now-repealed rule.
The NCAA and conferences also agreed to establish a revenue-sharing system, allowing schools to spend about $21 million annually on players.
The House and Hubbard v. NCAA cases have already been consolidated in the Northern District of California and are being overseen by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has ruled against the NCAA in several high-profile antitrust cases in recent years.
Mr. Carter is being supervised by U.S. Judge Richard Seeborg. Fontenot will be added to Seeborg’s lawsuit.
Former Colorado State football player Alex Fontenot said last November that NCAA rules illegally prevent college athletes from receiving a fair share of the millions of dollars in revenue their schools generate. filed a lawsuit alleging that.
Garrett Broshuis, a colleague of Mr Zerkes at the law firm Corein Tillery, said the Fontenot case should not be lumped together with the other three because of fundamental differences.
“The House focused on the issue of name, image and likeness rights, which is actually just a small portion of the total revenue that the NCAA and the conferences and their members bring in,” Broshuis told The Associated Press. “Our lawsuit focuses rather on what the true free market value of the services that these athletes provide.”
Brochuis said the Carter case focuses solely on basketball and football players from the Power Five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC).
“On the other hand, the class proposed by Fontenot is broader than that. Revenue is revenue no matter what sport it is,” he said.
The House lawsuit is a class action lawsuit seeking back pay for college athletes who were denied name, image and likeness compensation dating back to 2016. NCAA lifts ban on athletes making NIL money in 2021.
Steve Berman, one of the House’s lead attorneys, said in a statement to The Associated Press that Fontenot’s issues overlap completely with other lawsuits and that if the settlement is approved, “all of their claims will be waived. ” he said.
“And to the claim that they’re trying to gauge whether they want to participate, they’ve already challenged the agreement in Colorado court without even looking at it, which is completely irresponsible,” Berman said. “And it’s even more irresponsible because they’re not just some recent arrivals who didn’t contribute to the momentum that allowed us to get this done.”
