House v. NCAA settlement payments on hold amid legal challenge from female athletes on Title IX grounds
The recently approved House v. NCAA settlement is facing its first challenge, CBS Sports confirms. A collection of women’s sports athletes are planning to appeal the court decision, arguing that the structure of damages payments violates Title IX’s gender equity statute.
The settlement is set to pay out $2.8 billion in back pay to former athletes, but funds are on hold until the appeals process reaches a conclusion, NCAA lawyer Rakesh Kilaru told CBS Sports’ Brandon Marcello. NCAA president Charlie Baker told Yahoo Sports that the organization currently has $285 million ready to distribute once it gets the court’s permission.
While the appeal will halt damage payments, it should not impact the implementation of revenue sharing, scheduled for July 1.
Eight athletes have signed onto the motion to appeal, at least six of whom were women’s sports athletes at the College of Charleston in recent years. Distance runner Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt) and volleyball player Kate Johnson (Virginia) are also a part of the lawsuit from power conference institutions. The Charleston athletes include Lexi Drumms, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold.
“We support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law,” objecting attorney John Clune wrote in a statement to CBS Sports. “The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of $1.1 billion. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women’s sports.”
Four more female athletes are in the process of appealing the decision, led by attorney Leigh Ernst Friestedt.
“The House Settlement allocates $2.4 billion to men and only $102 million to women,” Friestedt wrote in a statement to CBS Sports. “This significant disparity constitutes a violation of Title IX. Charlotte, Mai, Katherine and Brooke look forward to the opportunity to appeal this decision with the 9th Circuit on behalf of millions of female student-athletes.”
Kilaru expressed optimism that the settlement will ultimately be upheld.
“Judge Wilken wrote a really thorough order — 76 pages,” Kilaru told CBS Sports. “I think she addressed all the issues really persuasively. It’s somewhat notable that this was actually not an issue that we even argued at the final approval hearing because I think typically, when you’re challenging back damages, your kind of logical remedy is to opt out of the settlement and not be bound by it, as opposed to challenging it.
“But with all of that said, the ultimate question that the appeals court is going to handle is not just whether Judge Wilken got it right or wrong, but actually whether she did what’s called ‘abusing her discretion’ in approving the settlement. And really what that means is she gets a lot of deference in the decision she made. So I think we feel confident that when we present our arguments to the court that the settlement approval will be upheld.”
The historic House settlement is set to pay $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who were unable to earn name, image and likeness dollars before it was legalized in 2021. Additionally, it allows schools to directly share revenues with athletes for the first time.
The House settlement used a formula to determine how to distribute money to a wide collection of athletes. Football and men’s basketball athletes who received full scholarships at Power Five schools from June 15, 2016, to Sept. 15, 2024, are set to receive 90% of the more than $2 billion settlement. Women’s basketball athletes will receive 5%, and all other athletes will split the remaining 5%.
All eight athletes filing the appeal are part of the third class. Most played volleyball or soccer at their respective schools.
“The settlement suggests schools would have paid male athletes over 90% of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn’t apply,” Clune wrote. “If Nike wants to do that, that is their choice. If the school, or a conference acting on the school’s behalf tries to do that, they are violating the law. They can either pay the athletes proportionately or they can return all of their federal funds. But they can’t do both.”
Judge Claudia Wilken, who oversaw the settlement in the Northern District of California, left the door open for appeals on Title IX grounds. However, it was not directly addressed in the settlement.
Additionally, the question of whether Title IX applies to revenue sharing money has been a controversial one. The Biden Department of Education previously issued guidance that player compensation is subject to Title IX. However, the Trump administration later revoked it after taking office in January.
Wilken wrote in the settlement approval that there’s nothing in the settlement itself that forces schools to contradict Title IX. She overruled objections that specifically claimed the settlement itself did not properly follow Title IX. Instead, it left the defining of Title IX compliance up to the schools and governing bodies.
“To the extent that schools violate Title IX when providing benefits and compensation to student-athletes pursuant to the Injunctive Settlement Agreement, class members will have the right to file lawsuits arising out of those violations,” Wilken wrote.
