### College Athletes Near Milestone for Direct Pay from Schools

College athletes are edging closer to a groundbreaking shift that will enable them to receive direct payments from their institutions. On Monday, Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval to a transformative antitrust settlement involving Division I athletes, the NCAA, and its Power Five conferences. This settlement addresses changes necessitated by legal challenges to the NCAA's longstanding amateurism rules that restrict compensation.

Judge Wilken, who had previously expressed concerns about aspects of the settlement potentially capping future player payments and failing legal standards, stated this week that the court is likely to approve the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and adequate." As part of Wilken's order, athletes affected by the settlement have until January 31 to file objections or opt out, with a final approval hearing scheduled for April 7, 2025, coinciding with the men's basketball championship game.

The settlement resolves three antitrust lawsuits—House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA—that challenged the NCAA's restrictions on athletes' earning potential. Under the agreement, the NCAA will pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to past and current athletes and lift restrictions on direct payments from schools to players, starting with a cap of around $20 million per school, which will incrementally increase annually.

Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class, expressed excitement about advancing toward a revolutionary change in college sports, enabling athletes to share in the revenue. By December, Division I athletes who have competed since 2016 will receive estimates of potential compensation from the damages pool.

NCAA president Charlie Baker regarded the settlement as a vital step towards reshaping the economic landscape of college sports, enabling payments to athletes without classifying them as employees. Baker highlighted the need for congressional support to address ongoing legal challenges related to the employment status of college athletes.

Despite objections concerning the fairness of damage allocations, with 90% of the $2.8 billion estimated to go to football and men's basketball players, the judge moved forward with the preliminary approval. Critics argued this distribution could be unfair to female athletes and potentially violate Title IX laws, which the settlement requires athletes to relinquish their rights to challenge.

Moreover, the settlement includes restrictions designed to curb the influence of NIL-based collectives that use endorsement deals to attract players, aiming to impose tighter spending limits on team rosters. Adjustments to this controversial term were made to satisfy legal scrutiny regarding its potential as an illegal restraint.

The settlement, though advancing, is expected to face ongoing scrutiny from critics and may have further ramifications as it progresses through the final steps of approval.