The Colorado case is not expected to be included in the proposed $2.8 billion NCAA player pay settlement

College football

By Associated Press

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 like to see their case remain in federal court in Colorado rather than move it to California and combine it 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 of Representatives’ lawsuit against the NCAA, which is at the center of settlement talks, have asked U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado to combine the Fontenot case with Carter v. NCAA, which is being heard in the Northern District of California.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in House v. NCAA gave the 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 Atlantic Coast Conference presidential councils voted to adopt the agreement. 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 on condition of anonymity because the conferences did not make internal discussions public.

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

Under the proposed agreement, the NCAA will pay $2.77 billion over 10 years to former and current college athletes who were barred from earning money from endorsement and sponsorship deals dating to 2016 under now-defunct rules.

The NCAA and conferences would also agree to establish a revenue-sharing system under which schools could 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 U.S. judge Richard Seeborg. Fontenot will be added to Seeborg’s affairs.

Former Colorado football player Alex Fontenot filed a lawsuit last November, claiming NCAA rules illegally prevent college athletes from earning their fair share of the schools’ multimillion-dollar revenues.

Garrett Broshuis, Zelcs’ colleague at the law firm Korean Tillery, said the Fontenot case should not be combined with the other three because there are fundamental differences between them.

“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 football players from Power Five conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.

“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 are entirely consistent with the other cases and that the settlement, if approved, “will discharge all of their 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.”