Clifford Chance

On October 7, 2024, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval for the $2.78 billion antitrust class action settlement between the NCAA and certain college athletes. Some headlines (perhaps drafted by the plaintiffs' attorneys) hailed it as a step toward justice. But if you look closely it’s clear this settlement isn't a win for fairness—especially not for female athletes, or really any athletes aside from a select few, mostly from Power 4 conference schools.

A Settlement for the Few, Not the Many

At first glance, this settlement looks like progress. But a closer look reveals that it primarily benefits male athletes in high-revenue sports. Many others—e.g., most female athletes, and any athletes in less profitable or non-revenue sports—get next to nothing. The NCAA is essentially agreeing to a settlement that benefits a select few while leaving everyone else out. If fairness is the goal, this settlement does nothing to achieve it.

This imbalance isn’t just unfair—it sets a terrible precedent and risks even more litigation. By funneling benefits primarily to male-dominated sports, the settlement risks running afoul of Title IX, which mandates gender equity in college athletics. It also may violate numerous state statutes. Schools could soon find themselves defending against more lawsuits. The irony? A settlement meant to benefit athletes and potentially assist with setting clear compensation rules could expose schools to fresh legal battles and perhaps even entrench inequality.

Ignoring Alston’s Warning

The settlement also seems to ignore much of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in NCAA v. Alston, which held that certain compensation restrictions would be "flatly illegal" in any other business in America. Instead of learning from Alston, this settlement doubles down on certain practices, and even introduces new restrictions that look suspiciously like the ones the Court called illegal.

Piling Up the Problems

The fallout from this deal doesn’t stop with Title IX or Alston. College sports are already buckling under the pressure of NIL money, conference realignments, and a transfer portal that’s turned team rosters into revolving doors, more like professional sports leagues than the college sports we know. This settlement creates even more instability—adding to an endless cycle of lawsuits and shifting rules that only benefit a tiny fraction of college athletes while everyone else loses out.

Coaches and administrators are already struggling to manage this. For example, Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney has expressed his concerns about the impact on college sports and walk-on opportunities, and Virginia basketball coach Tony Bennett stepped down, citing concerns over NIL. Former Alabama coach Nick Saban, not known for subtlety, summed it up: “All the things that I believed in, for all these years, no longer exist in college athletics . . . why are we doing this?” It’s hard to argue with him.

A Better Path Forward

Let’s be clear: this settlement isn’t reform—it’s at best a temporary fix that settles three lawsuits. And not a very good fix. What college sports need is real change. Instead of patchwork settlements that leave most college athletes worse off, it’s time for a national solution. Congress should step in to create a clear, cohesive framework that balances fairness, compliance with antitrust laws, and the principles of amateurism. An antitrust exemption for the NCAA might sound controversial, but it could be the key to enforcing rules that benefit everyone—not just the select few at a handful of schools.

There is a way to compensate athletes fairly while keeping the focus on education and opportunity for all. That includes female athletes, whose contributions and sacrifices deserve far more respect—and compensation—than this settlement offers. This settlement doesn't do it. It certainly benefits a handful of athletes and their lawyers, but for everyone else, it’s a glaring miss that highlights just how far we still have to go.