As the NCAA nears a $2.8 billion settlement, it is unclear whether the Colorado case is part of the deal

As the NCAA moves toward a $2.8 billion settlement that could resolve three antitrust lawsuits — and the Big Ten is the latest conference to agree — it’s unclear whether a fourth case will also be covered by the deal.

Attorneys in Fontenot v. NCAA said Wednesday they would prefer their case remain in federal court in Colorado rather than be moved to California and combined with another antitrust lawsuit involving college sports. They said they wouldn’t know whether their claims would be covered by the settlement until they knew all the details of the proposal.

“One way or another, they’re going to have to cooperate with us, otherwise I just don’t see how there’s going to be a settlement in the end,” said George Zelcs, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. “They must either include us or receive an order that requires our involvement. We also have arguments against all this.”

The NCAA and five major college conferences named in the House v. NCAA lawsuit, which is at the center of settlement talks, have asked U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado to combine the Fontenot case with another antitrust lawsuit, Carter v. NCAA, which is being heard in the northern District of California.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in House vs. The NCAA gave defendants a Thursday deadline to agree to the settlement.

The NCAA has already passed two stages of a three-part approval process that must be completed by the Governing Council.

On Tuesday, the Big 12 and ACC presidential councils voted to accept the settlement. Big Ten presidents voted to approve the deal Wednesday during their spring meetings in Los Angeles, a person with direct knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because the conferences did not make internal discussions public.

The presidents of the SEC and Pac-12 are scheduled to meet Thursday to consider a settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the NCAA will pay $2.77 billion over 10 years to former and current college athletes who were denied the opportunity under now-defunct rules to earn money from endorsement and endorsement deals dating to 2016. The NCAA and conferences also agree to establish a revenue-sharing system under which schools would be able to spend about $21 million a year on their athletes.

The House and Hubbard v. NCAA cases have already been consolidated in the Northern District of California and are being overseen by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has ruled against the NCAA in several high-profile antitrust cases in recent years.

Carter is being supervised by District Judge Richard Seeborg. Fontenot will be added to Seeborg’s affairs.

Former Colorado player Alex Fontenot filed a lawsuit last November, alleging that NCAA rules illegally prevent college athletes from earning their fair share of the millions of dollars provided by schools. Garrett Broshuis, Zelcs’ colleague at the law firm Korean Tillery, said the Fontenot Case should not be combined with the other three because they have fundamental differences.

“House focused on name, image and likeness issues, which actually represent only a small portion of the overall revenue brought in by the NCAA and its conferences and their members,” Broshuis told the AP. “Instead, we focus on what the true free market value of the services these athletes provide would be.”

Broshuis said Carter’s case focuses solely on basketball and players from the Power Five conferences – Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference.

“While the class proposed by Fontenot is broader. Revenue is revenue, regardless of the sport,” he said.

The House case is a class action lawsuit seeking to recover compensation for college athletes who were denied name, image and likeness compensation for 2016. The NCAA has lifted the ban on athletes earning NIL in 2021.

Steve Berman, one of the House’s top lawyers, said in a statement to the AP that the issues in Fontenot were entirely consistent with the remaining cases and that the settlement, if approved, would “release all claims.”

“And as for their claim, they are waiting to see if they want to participate, they have already filed objections in court in Colorado without even reviewing the contract, which is completely irresponsible behavior,” Berman said. “Especially because they didn’t contribute to the momentum that allowed us to achieve this, unlike how Johnny came along recently.”

___

Follow Ralph D. Russo at https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP and listen at http://www.appodcasts.com

___

AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/college-football