![Houston Christian University](https://cdn.statically.io/img/www.sportico.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/GettyImages-2158110406-e1720215769460.jpg?w=1280&h=721&crop=1)
The multibillion, but still unfinished and unfiled, proposed settlement to convert big-time college sports into a pro model was recently challenged by Houston Christian University, but attorneys for players in the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations told Judge Claudia Wilken Friday to reject HCU’s bid.
In a seven-page opposition motion submitted by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, the plaintiffs argue HCU’s motion to intervene is “premature and meritless.”
As detailed by Sportico, HCU last month became the first, and thus far only, Division I school to legally object to the proposed settlement.
HCU, which like other NCAA schools is not a named defendant, insists it had no voice or opportunity to impact the proposed settlement. The agreement would compel D-I schools to pay some of a roughly $2.7 billion tab for compensation of players who were denied NIL, broadcasting money and video game revenue on account of NCAA amateurism rules. The settlement also envisions participating schools adhering to a $21 million salary cap in a pro-sports-style model. HCU maintains the deal would be financially ruinous and would necessitate school officials breach fiduciary duties to students and other community members. While other schools have not joined HCU, leaders of some have voiced similar grievances and worries and have complained the dealmaking was rushed and not transparent.
Berman and Kessler raise several counter-arguments.
They argue HCU—an “unnamed coconspirator” of the NCAA—allegedly lacks standing. To that point, Berman and Kessler belittle HCU for raising “hypothetical fears” since the parties haven’t yet filed a preliminary approval motion for Wilken to consider (they are expected to do so by July 15). HCU’s claims about settlement terms and impact are dismissed as “mere” and unactionable “conjecture.”
The attorneys also contend that “contrary to HCU’s speculation,” the settlement envisions “all potential future payments from universities to college athletes” as “voluntary”—just like, Berman and Kessler point out, it is voluntary for universities to play in D-I and remain NCAA members.
Berman and Kessler also maintain that HCU’s interests are “adequately protected by existing parties that have identical interests.”
They insist the NCAA, as a membership organization, “speaks” for HCU and other member schools. Berman and Kessler add that the NCAA’s board of governors, which is supposedly representative of college athletics, “voted on the broad contours of the settlement.” As the attorneys see it, “HCU’s post hoc disagreement with the outcome of the vote” is not a valid ground to intervene.
Lastly, Berman and Kessler accuse HCU of distorting the timeline. They maintain HCU has known about the litigation since House was filed in 2020, and if HCU didn’t feel adequately represented by the NCAA and power conferences, HCU “should have (and could have) intervened long ago.”
HCU could respond to the brief and would likely counter several points. It will be interesting to see if other schools join HCU, or if athletes object to the settlement. The more opposition the settlement attracts, the more Wilken will have to weigh in whether to approve or reject it.