On Friday, Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC attorneys John Clune and Ashlyn Hare—alongside Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin LLP—filed an objection to the House v. NCAA settlement on behalf of 10 former and current female college athletes asserting that the proposed damages violate Title IX and under compensate female athletes.
“The settlement attempts an ‘end run’ around Title IX. We want to make sure the court addresses it head on because it’s a real problem here. The schools and conferences should be embarrassed. They know better.”
- John Clune, partner, Hutchinson Black and Cook
Among the key concerns outlined in the objection are:
● Unequal distribution of damages. The settlement primarily relies on the erroneous belief that schools, over the past 8 years, would have paid 96% of compensation to male athletes had the NCAA and conferences not restricted the right of athletes to earn money. As outlined in our objection, Title IX would have required any money coming from the school or conference to be paid equitably between men and women.
The settlement primarily allocates 90% of the $2.8 billion in past damages to male athletes in football and basketball, without ensuring that female athletes receive equitable financial benefits. As a result, most female athletes will take home a meager $125 USD per year of eligibility, while male athletes are taking home tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their marketability.
● Title IX violations. While most objections filed to the House vs. NCAA settlement are in response to roster limits and antitrust issues, there’s an critical and woefully overlooked component to the settlement that most objections have not raised: gender equity. Specifically, the proposed damages fail to acknowledge that Title IX applies to payments by the schools and conferences and requires proportionate distribution of financial aid and athletic benefits.
● Threats to non-revenue and women’s sports. The financial impact of the settlement may lead institutions to reallocate funds, potentially cutting or deprioritizing women’s and non-revenue sports programs. Some schools have also stated they will implement the settlement’s new revenue-sharing model consistent with the inequitable distribution of past damages with 90% of revenue going to football and men’s basketball.
The filing comes amid ongoing legal and public scrutiny over the NCAA’s handling of athlete compensation, including name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and revenue-sharing agreements. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of college athletics and women in sports. HBC is one of only a handful of objections that challenged the settlement’s treatment of female athletes.
In our objection filed on behalf of 10 former and current student female athletes, HBC is one of only a handful of objections on the basis of Title IX.
“As a former college athlete, I know how essential Title IX has been to the development of women’s sport, and it’s critical that it doesn’t fall by the wayside as college sports are increasingly commercialized. The NCAA, conferences, and schools have an obligation to their female athletes to recognize their value and invest in their future. That starts with recognizing Title IX in this settlement agreement.”
Ashlyn Hare, associate attorney, Hutchinson Black and Cook
Read the full objection.