Next hearing date set in House v. NCAA settlement case
The House v. NCAA settlement case officially has its next court date, scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 26.
The parties held a preliminary approval hearing last week over Zoom in front of Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California. This next hearing will also be held on Zoom.
The judge sent the NCAA and plaintiffs “back to the drawing board” to rework parts of the settlement centering around capping spending of third-party boosters and NIL collectives.
She expressed concern the agreement would take away from the “large sums” of dollars currently going to athletes. The hearing left the NCAA with a major question: Move forward without enforcement around NIL collectives or possibly land a trial date.
After Thursday’s hearing, plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler told On3 he’s “100% serious” about heading to trial. Speaking with sources over the weekend, On3 learned leaving collective/booster restrictions out of the agreement could be a dealbreaker for certain conferences. Not only is the NCAA named as a defendant in the suit but so are the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC.
The NCAA could decide to rewrite the section and just state it is keeping its NIL enforcement status quo. That would leave the governing body handcuffed and in need of Congressional assistance. The NCAA halted all NIL investigations this past winter after being handed a preliminary injunction in Tennessee. The court ruling allows NIL collectives to openly negotiate with recruits.
The other option is landing a trial date and having the lawsuit tried.
The NCAA will have to reach a consensus to accept changes to enforcement around boosters or accept the reality that if the case is tried, it could be on the hook for $20 billion in back damages.
“Last night’s hearing did not go as we hoped,” NCAA president Charlie Baker wrote last week to membership. “The court posed worthwhile questions that the NCAA began working through immediately last night with our partners in the conferences. The proposal presented to the court was the product of months of negotiations with student-athletes’ attorneys whose track records speak for themselves when it comes to effective athlete representation.”