In a significant turn of events for college athletics, a group of 67 former NCAA Division I student-athletes is taking action against the NCAA and its power conferences. This comes as they have chosen to opt out of a pending settlement related to several legal cases concerning antitrust claims known as House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA. These athletes are now seeking their own legal path to challenge the NCAA’s rules governing athlete compensation.
On Friday, the athletes, which include notable figures like former Mississippi State running back Kylin Hill, filed a 141-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They argue that the NCAA has unlawfully restricted their ability to compete economically for athletic scholarships and revenue, essentially accusing the NCAA of price-fixing and other antitrust violations. Their legal push aims to hold the NCAA accountable, especially since the organization has not shared broadcast revenues with the athletes and previously prohibited them from signing NIL deals until recently.
The timing of this new legal action comes shortly before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is expected to approve the settlement in the House case, which would limit the claims of those who remain part of that settlement. By opting out, these 67 athletes keep their rights to pursue their own antitrust claims and avoid the legal principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which would otherwise end their claims if they stayed within the settlement.
There’s a clear risk associated with their decision. By opting out, they give up the chance for financial compensation from the multibillion-dollar settlement. Additionally, pursuing a new antitrust lawsuit could take years, as similar cases have stretched on for over a decade. There is no guarantee of success, especially given the NCAA’s strong legal defenses.
Kylin Hill’s involvement in this lawsuit draws attention, particularly because of his activism regarding Mississippi’s state flag. His actions have positioned him as not only a prominent athlete but also a potential marketing figure. This case, however, represents a broader struggle for many athletes who feel that the NCAA exploits their talents while generating massive revenues.
In a statement, an NCAA spokesperson expressed confidence that this latest lawsuit would not disrupt the settlement process, asserting that the claims represent a small minority of student-athletes. As new legal battles loom, this situation underscores the ongoing contention between student-athletes and the NCAA, marking a potential new era of legal scrutiny for college sports.
