Fontenot v. NCAA plaintiffs' lawyers ask judge to deny approval of proposed House settlement

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Fontenot v. NCAA case submitted a filing to ask U.S. district judge Claudia Wilken to deny approval of the landmark House settlement. Wilken is set to make a ruling on Sept. 5.

It’s the latest opposition to the House settlement, which the Power 5 conferences and the NCAA agreed to in late May. Pending Wilken’s certification, the settlement would effectively usher in the revenue-sharing era in college athletics.

As part of the agreement, the NCAA and Power 5 would pay $2.776 billion in back damages over 10 years, On3’s Pete Nakos reported – a much smaller number than the potential $20 billion figure. That $2.776 billion includes $1.976 billion for the NIL damages claims and $600 million in additional compensation.

However, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Fontenot case argue the House settlement is “just pennies on the dollar,” according to the filing.

“The movants did not express any interest in litigating those claims, and the proposed settlement undervalues them,” the filing read. “The movants value the Fontenot fair pay claims at a little over $1.8 billion. That evaluation, however, adopts economic assumptions favorable to the NCAA, essentially assuming that a jury would side with the NCAA on what goes into the revenue pool and what credits the NCAA might be granted towards the fair pay calculation.

“To calculate the possible value of the claims, the Fontenot plaintiffs obtained an independent, preliminary estimate from a respected economist: over $24 billion. The movants plan to devote $600 million of the fund to these claims, meaning movants are proposing to settle the claims for just pennies on the dollar – before trebling.”

The House settlement includes three antitrust suits against the NCAA: House, Carter and Hubbard. A judge ruled the Fontenot case would proceed outside of those three, though, and remain in Colorado, where former Colorado quarterback Alex Fontenot filed the class-action suit in November. He alleged that NCAA rules that prohibit athletes from receiving compensation from schools and leagues violate antitrust law.

The House settlement has potential to change the college athletics landscape dramatically. Revenue-sharing is a central part of it, as schools would be able to opt-in and share up to $22 million with athletes – a number calculated as a portion of their annual revenue. Roster limits would also go into place, meaning football would go from 85 scholarships to 105 if programs choose to do so.