Judge rejects NCAA settlement proposal that aimed to permit revenue sharing with college athletes

Judge Blocks NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement Over Roster Limit Concerns: What This Means for College Sports

In a ruling that sent shockwaves through the college athletics world, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has refused to grant final approval to a landmark antitrust settlement involving the NCAA and the Power Five conferences — not because of the billion-dollar payout or the prospect of athletes finally sharing in revenue, but because of roster limits tucked into the agreement.

The proposed settlement, which had been widely heralded as a groundbreaking moment for college athletes, included a $2.8 billion payout to thousands of current and former student-athletes. It also would have ushered in a new era, allowing schools to directly compensate athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL), within a framework tied to athletic revenue and subject to institutional caps.

But according to Judge Wilken, there’s one critical problem: the immediate implementation of new roster limits — intended to replace the NCAA’s traditional scholarship caps — could unfairly harm a significant number of athletes, especially walk-ons and incoming recruits.

“Because the settlement agreement is not fair and reasonable to the significant number of class members whose roster spots will be or have been taken away… the Court cannot approve the settlement agreement in its current form,” Wilken wrote.

Why the Roster Limits Matter
Under the original proposal, new sport-by-sport roster limits would take effect on July 1, 2025. While designed to provide schools more flexibility in allocating scholarships, the new limits would force institutions to trim rosters across various sports. That has already sparked backlash from athletes, families, and even coaches who fear walk-ons and fringe players will be the first to lose their spots.

During an April 7 hearing, Judge Wilken floated the idea of phasing in the new limits to avoid immediate disruption. Many supported the idea — including lawyers for objecting athletes, dozens of affected students, and their parents — who submitted personal and emotional appeals. Wilken gave the settlement parties a week to revise the proposal accordingly.

But when the updated agreement was filed on April 14, it left the roster rules intact. That refusal to budge led to Wednesday’s ruling, leaving the future of the settlement — and the timeline for its rollout — hanging in the balance.

Reactions Across the College Sports Landscape
Reactions have been mixed. One athletic director, speaking anonymously to USA TODAY Sports, described the situation as “insanity,” criticizing the judge for seemingly negotiating based on personal letters. Another, however, said the fix is simple: coaches have long wanted a grandfather clause, and the delay is more about finalizing policy than starting from scratch.

The NCAA and conferences issued a joint statement late Wednesday, noting:

“We are closely reviewing Judge Wilken’s order. Our focus continues to be on securing approval of this significant agreement, which aims to create more opportunities than ever before for student-athletes while fostering much-needed stability and fairness in college sports.”

Attorney Laura Reathaford, who represents several objecting athletes, praised the judge’s order, saying it followed the law and upheld fairness:

“We look forward to working with the parties on an amicable resolution to this problem.”

What Comes Next?
Judge Wilken has ordered both sides to consult with a mediator within 14 days to explore modifications to the settlement, particularly around the roster rules. She also invited the attorneys for the objectors to participate in those discussions. In the meantime, she restarted the pre-trial process, signaling that the case could return to court if no consensus is reached.

Despite the roster setback, Wilken expressed confidence in the overall fairness of the agreement. With the exception of the roster provision, she wrote, she is prepared to approve the rest of the settlement, finding it “fair, reasonable, and adequate” — and signaling that a resolution remains within reach if the parties can address her concerns.

Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Berman remained optimistic:

“The good news is she overruled all the objections but one… We are confident we can convince the NCAA and the conferences to fix the issue so that we satisfy Judge Wilken. If not, the Judge has restarted the pre-trial schedule — and so be it.”

The Bigger Picture
The ruling is more than just a legal roadblock — it’s a reminder of the delicate balancing act between progress and fairness in college sports. The proposed agreement could revolutionize the student-athlete experience, but only if all athletes — especially those without scholarships — are protected during the transition.

As the parties return to the table, all eyes remain on whether the NCAA will make the necessary adjustments or gamble on a prolonged legal fight. Either way, the future of revenue-sharing in college athletics is closer than ever — but it’s not over yet.