College Athletes Push for Players’ Association Amid $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement
In a groundbreaking move that could reshape the future of college sports, three athletes at the center of the pending $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement are calling for sweeping structural changes. Grant House, Sedona Prince, and Nya Harrison, the athletes behind the lawsuits that led to the massive settlement, are now advocating for the creation of an independent players’ association to give college athletes a collective bargaining voice.
The trio made their case in a Dec. 2 letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who is overseeing the settlement. While they praised the settlement as a “significant step forward,” they warned that without proper representation, athletes would remain in a “vulnerable position” and the industry would continue to face “continued litigation.” Their letter urged the court to support efforts to establish a players’ association, which they believe is essential for the long-term success of college sports.
What’s in the Settlement?
The settlement, which Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval for in September, is a landmark deal in the world of college athletics. It would pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to former athletes and introduce a new system allowing schools to directly compensate their athletes starting next year. Under the terms of the 10-year agreement, each school could allocate more than $20 million annually for athlete compensation, with that figure expected to increase over time.
However, the settlement also includes provisions to cap how much each team can pay its athletes and restrict booster payments as recruiting incentives. These measures are designed to maintain competitive balance, according to athletic directors and conference commissioners. But House, Prince, and Harrison argue that without athlete representation in these decisions, the system is bound to face further legal challenges.
The Push for a Players’ Association
In their letter, the athletes made their stance clear: “We need a players’ association.” They pointed out that professional sports leagues include athletes in decision-making processes through their respective players’ associations, while the college system continues to exclude athletes from having a seat at the table. This exclusion, they argue, leaves athletes without a voice in critical decisions that directly impact their lives and careers.
House, Prince, and Harrison are all members of Athletes.org, a relatively new organization aiming to provide formal representation for college athletes. Even if the NCAA successfully blocks athletes from unionizing, groups like Athletes.org hope to advocate on their behalf and push for meaningful change.
Legal and Legislative Hurdles
The NCAA and its member schools remain firmly opposed to the idea of athletes being classified as employees, a designation that is typically required for legally binding collective bargaining agreements. College officials are actively lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would prevent athletes from being deemed employees and forming unions. Meanwhile, multiple attempts to unionize college athletes are making their way through the court system.
Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer representing the class action plaintiffs, told ESPN that he doesn’t believe the athletes’ letter will derail the settlement process. “I think the settlement is incredible for college sports, but it does not solve every issue in the world,” Kessler said. “The fact they might also need a players’ association is a valid point. I have no problem with it.”
A hearing to grant final approval for the settlement is scheduled for early April. Until then, athletes and other interested parties have until the end of January to file formal objections to the settlement’s terms.
What’s Next for College Sports?
The letter from House, Prince, and Harrison signals that the battle to professionalize college sports is far from over. While the settlement represents a major victory for athletes, it’s clear that many believe more needs to be done to ensure fairness and equity in the system. The athletes’ call for a players’ association could be the next major front in this ongoing fight.
Leaders from the NCAA and its most powerful conferences are optimistic that the settlement, combined with proposed federal legislation, will help schools regain some control over the rapidly evolving college sports landscape. But the athletes’ letter serves as a reminder that any system that excludes their voices is likely to face continued resistance.
Judge Wilken is not obligated to respond to the athletes’ letter, but their concerns could influence her decision on whether to grant final approval to the settlement. Additionally, a group of state lawmakers recently raised concerns about how the settlement aligns with laws they’ve authored regarding college athletes’ rights to earn money in their states.
Key Takeaways
- The $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement is a historic step forward for college athletes, but it doesn’t address all their concerns.
- Grant House, Sedona Prince, and Nya Harrison are advocating for the creation of a players’ association to give athletes a collective bargaining voice.
- The NCAA remains opposed to classifying athletes as employees, and legal battles over unionization are ongoing.
- A hearing to finalize the settlement is scheduled for early April, with objections due by the end of January.
As the college sports industry continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the voices of athletes like House, Prince, and Harrison are growing louder, and their demands for change are becoming harder to ignore.
Originally Written by: Dan Murphy
