OAKLAND, Calif. — Around 8:07 a.m. PT on Monday, an older bespectacled woman with curly graying hair, wearing a leather jacket and carrying a beige tote bag and black purse, crossed Jefferson Street in downtown Oakland on a cold, rainy morning.
The woman walked up two flights of marble steps, entered the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse and then slipped quietly into an employee entrance within the building’s main lobby.
That woman, California judge Claudia Wilken, holds decision-making power that stands to alter the future of college athletics.
Two hours after she entered the building, within a small third-floor courtroom and in front of about 75 people and hundreds more watching online, Wilken presided over a near seven-hour court proceeding that marked the final hearing in the NCAA’s House settlement agreement.
In the end, the 75-year-old retiring judge indicated that she would, indeed, approve the settlement if changes are made specifically to two concepts: (1) provide a phase-in period for implementing new roster limits or “grandfather in” current athletes on rosters; and (2) adjust language related to binding future athletes to the 10-year settlement.
In the final five minutes of the hearing, Wilken more than tipped her hand: She wants to approve the settlement.
“Basically, I think it is a good settlement,” she said. “I think it’s worth pursuing. I think some of these things can be fixed.”
It was a somewhat groundbreaking moment — a booming revelation from a sitting federal judge about such a historically significant agreement that stands to reshape college sports. The NCAA and power conference’s settlement of three antitrust cases — House, Hubbard and Carter, all of them legal challenges over athlete compensation — will usher in the age of athlete revenue sharing, with billions of dollars expected to be shared with current and future athletes in a capped system, and another $2.8 billion assigned to past athletes in backpay.
Will the NCAA and power conferences make the required changes?
“We’re going to take a look at some things,” NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru said. “At the end of the day, we came to the court today with a good settlement that we think is workable for the class and is good for college sports moving forward.”
The change to the roster limits looms as the key issue, one that’s been festering now for months.
In fact, of the parade of objectors who appeared in court Monday before the judge, many focused their critiques on the implementation of roster limits, which are imposed on schools that opt into the House settlement’s revenue-sharing concept. While the NCAA and power conferences agreed to expand upon scholarships as part of the settlement — schools are now permitted, not required, to scholarship every player on a roster — they also imposed sport roster limits that did not previously exist.
The new roster limits are expected ...
