NCAA Lawsuits
Former College Player Takes Aim at NCAA House Settlement
by Staff Reports, 10 February 2025
| Share: |  |
|  | |
|
|
I am a former Stanford tennis player and now an intellectual property attorney at a large national law firm, where I regularly advise on matters related to NIL. Given my background in both sports and law, and as a parent of aspiring college athletes, I have been closely following the landmark House v. NCAA lawsuit. Like many other former and current athletes of Olympic and non-revenue-generating sports, I am deeply concerned about the impact this lawsuit will have on the future of my sport. I am writing anonymously in case of conflicts of interest, and the views expressed in this article are my own.
I will forgo the details of the lawsuit, which are readily available online. The punchline is that the parties to the lawsuit have proposed a settlement that will pave the way for D1 schools to begin paying college athletes—mostly football and men’s basketball players—millions of dollars annually under the guise of NIL. This seismic change, among others, will fundamentally alter college sports as we know it.
On April 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will hold a “fairness” hearing to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to class members. At a very high level, class members include all current D1 athletes, all athletes who played a D1 sport since 2016, and every prospective athlete who aspires to play a D1 sport in the next 10 years (e.g., a current 10-and-under tennis player). If Judge Wilken finds the settlement to be generally fair to class members, she can approve it, and the terms of the settlement will go into effect immediately.
Judge Wilken will not be making this decision in a vacuum. Class members and interested parties have the opportunity to object or write concerns to the proposed settlement ahead of the April 7 hearing. Hundreds of objections to various parts of the settlement have been submitted to date, ranging from high-profile athletes like LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne to a seventh grade girl aspiring to play D1 basketball someday.
ITA’s Thought-Provoking Response
Among the many objections and letters that I have reviewed, I was particularly pleased to see the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) submit a letter to Judge Wilken outlining its concerns about the settlement’s impact on college tennis. In fact, the ITA appears to be the only sports governing body at any level to pen a formal letter to Judge Wilken so far. I applaud the ITA for being a voice to countless past, present, and future tennis players, including those currently competing on one of the 554 D1 men's and women's tennis programs across the country. A copy of the letter can be found here.
To say the ITA’s letter is thought-provoking would be an understatement. If you are tennis fan, here are some things to consider:
(1) Should it really be the case that the settlement’s financial distribution model assigns Emma Navarro and Ben Shelton—two of the most recognizable names in professional tennis today and during their collegiate careers—a NIL valuation that is magnitudes less than a mediocre and undistinguished football tackle? According to published data, an average football player who you've likely never heard of will be paid $135,000 under the settlement. While the ITA did not disclose numbers, I suspect that “Box-Office-Ben” is receiving something in the low four digits. Unfortunately, little data has been publicly disclosed for tennis players, but one data point stands out—and it is telling. Mai Nirundorn, a standout player at top-ranked Georgia, filed an objection with Judge Wilken, arguing that the settlement violates Title IX. Her resume speaks for itself: NCAA finalist, SEC champion, ranked No. 2 in the country, former Top 20 ITF junior, member of Thailand’s National Team, multiple academic honors, etc. Yet, despite her achievements, her NIL valuation according to the settlement’s financial distribution model is just $427. Let that sink in.
(2) Should a school really be able to pay a football player $4 million dollars before he ever sets foot on campus or plays a single snap, while a tennis player is prohibited from accepting a single dime of prize money (beyond reimbursement for negligible out-of-pocket expenses) for playing, winning, and entertaining the world under the lights of Arthur Ashe stadium? UNC star Reese Brantmeier and former Texas commit Maya Joint have both objected to the settlement and are also separately suing the NCAA over this same issue. Brantmeier was forced to forgo $40,000 in prize money from the 2021 U.S. Open in order to maintain her “amateur” status. The NCAA even refused to let her seek reimbursement for her mother’s hotel expenses during the tournament. How much longer will the NCAA cling to its outdated notion of “amateurism” when it comes to tennis?
(3) Is the settlement predicated upon an unsustainable economic model? If schools must muster over $20 million a year to pay athletes predominantly in two sports, to what extent will schools choose to invest in their tennis programs? How long before schools start eliminating tennis programs and other non-revenue-generating sports entirely? Make no mistake—it will happen.
(4) Lastly, I wish to touch on another dreadful consequence of the settlement—roster limits. The settlement requires all D1 schools opting to pay athletes to immediately limit rosters to an arbitrary number chosen by the NCAA. For example, football teams will be limited to 105 players, and coaches will be required to cut all players exceeding the roster limit before next season. No grace period. No gradual implementation. No grandfathering in of any athletes currently on rosters. Numerous D1 teams in all sports currently carry rosters that exceed the settlement’s roster limits. As a result, Sports Illustrated reported here that up to 25,000 athletes across all sports will be cut—or have already been cut in anticipation of roster limits—due to the settlement. While much has been said of the financial cost of the settlement, the human cost is devastating.
Unfair Roster Limitations
The ITA’s letter acknowledges roster limits as an important issue, but understandably does not focus on it, as tennis is not as severely affected as other sports. However, tennis players are still among the casualties. A former silver ball winner who now plays for Vanderbilt objected to the settlement’s roster limits, revealing that the Vanderbilt men’s tennis team will need to cut six players the moment the settlement is approved. Another former standout, who won multiple gold, silver, and bronze balls, proudly accepted an offer to play for LSU, only to be told by his coach that if the settlement is approved, he may be cut in order to “prioritize the older, more experienced international recruits.” Another junior standout who passed up multiple scholarship offers to join the University of Texas as a preferred walk-on also objected, disclosing that the Texas women’s tennis team will be forced to cut three players if the settlement is approved.
It is surprising to me, shocking in fact, that the attorneys in the lawsuit have not amended the settlement to grandfather in athletes currently on teams so that they can finish their careers. Forcing coaches to cut thousands of athletes overnight for reasons unrelated to academics, conduct, or performance seems to go against everything the NCAA claims to stand for. By all means, this is such a preventable tragedy, and my hope is that Judge Wilken recognizes this.
In conclusion, I applaud the ITA for taking a swing at the House v. NCAA settlement and advocating for the entire tennis community. If the settlement is approved as-is, college sports will never be the same—especially for tennis and other non-revenue-generating sports. The future of these programs and individual athletes hangs in the balance, and the consequences could be irreversible.
Leave a Comment
More Special Features
28-Feb-2025
College Tennis Welcomes Electronic Line Calling
The 2025 ITA Division I Men's Team Indoor Championship served as a pilot test event for the PlayReplay electronic line calling challenge system, which earned praise coaches, players, and officials for helping resolve questionable call situations with more accuracy.
24-Jan-2025
Eight Intriguing Questions for 2025
It's January, which means it's time for Colette Lewis to provide her annual Eight Intriguing Questions. The 2025 edition includes insight into major tournament moves, college funding decisions, junior programs, and the USTA's re-orgnization strategy.
22-Jan-2025
Lavine Overcomes Adversity, Makes Mother Proud
Andrew Lavine's dream was to play NCAA Division I tennis. He endured some hard times after his mother died unexpectedly, but worked hard to fulfill his goal and make her proud. The four-star senior from Texas has signed with UC Riverside.
