(KBTX) - Roster limits are the lone hurdle left in the years-long journey to approving the settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust case. However, it remains a high hurdle to clear.
Wednesday, Judge Claudia Wilken issued a five-page order that held the settlement’s approval contingent on both parties agreeing to gradually implementing roster limits. If plaintiffs, former and current NCAA athletes, and the defendants, the NCAA and power conferences, can’t come to agreeable terms on the issue, the case might very well go to trial.
Attorneys from both parties, as well as lawyers representing objecting parties, have 14 days to come to new terms on the issue, according to the court document.
“Because the settlement agreement is not fair and reasonable to the significant number of class members whose roster spots will be or have been taken away because of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot approve the settlement agreement in its current form,” Wilken wrote in the order.
Headlining the settlement is $2.6 billion in backpay to Division I athletes who were on roster from June 15, 2016 to present, based on NIL lost in broadcast rights, what would have been made for video game NIL and other compensations for athletic services. It also establishes a revenue sharing model for broadcast NIL covering current athletes moving forward for 10 years.
However, in an approval hearing for the settlement on April 7, Wilken posed the issue of roster limits, as they were spelled out in the settlement, to attorneys after receiving multiple objections to their implementation. Currently, the settlement removes scholarship limits on all sports for programs that opt-in to the settlement. However, it establishes roster limits for programs, putting a cap on how many scholarships a program can give.
For instance, football previously could only give out 85 scholarships but could carry as many walk-on players as desired. Under the settlement, football programs will cap football rosters at 105 players, all of which could receive a scholarship. The Southeastern Conference has already announced it will keep the cap on scholarships at 85, leaving 20 spots for walk-ons.
The change would eliminate approximately 20 walk-on roster positions in football alone, not to mention the impact on other college athletic teams.
After the April 7 hearing, at which several current and future college athletes spoke to the immediate elimination of these positions, Wilken asked both parties to discuss the issue and issue a brief to the court. In that brief, both sides said they believed the settlement was sufficient as written.
There was a short period for objectors to file letters to the court after the brief was filed, which included objections from Texas A&M walk-on football player Kyle Garvis and his mother Ruey Garvis.
Garvis is a rising sophomore offensive lineman out of Strake Jesuit High School in Houston, where he was a three-time All-District honoree. In his letter to Wilken, Garvis said he chose to be a walk-on for the Aggies, despite receiving offers at other levels of college football. He pleads with Wilken to “grandfather” current walk-ons into the settlement, which would allow roster limits to phase in over the next few years.
“The roster spot that I chose to accept from all other offers is not in jeopardy, because I didn’t perform up to expectations on the practice field, or didn’t make my grades or broke team rules,” shared Garvis in a written statement. “It is being taken from me because, as a walk-on, I am now ‘collateral damage,’ the unintended consequence of the NCAA settlement as it pertains to roster limits.”
Garvis’ letter was one of 122 objection letters received by the court in response to the supplemental brief filed by both parties on April 14.
Another was penned by his mother, who also petitioned for grandfathering in current walk-ons to the settlement.
“It is a travesty to think that a lawsuit, brought to ‘right’ a perceived wrong, has created a new wrong,” she advocated. “Walk-ons are often the heart of a team, providing inspiration through their desire to develop into a scholarship player. After all, the core motivation of a student athlete hasn’t always been ‘the money;’ for Kyle, THIS Texas A&M football team is his home, this is his family.”
Keeping current walk-ons in a program, while adding scholarships as a part of the settlement, would cost athletic departments more money. If the settlement is approved, athletic departments will be on the hook for approximately $20.5 million in revenue sharing payments as well as the additional cost of scholarships.
One of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Steve Berman, issued a statement following the release of Wilken’s order that said they are prepared to take the case to trial of the NCAA and power conferences will not relent on roster limits. Should the case go to trial and the defendants are found liable, it could cost them triple the damages as is possible in antitrust cases.
“We appreciate the court’s guidance and thoughtful review of this monumental case,” the statement added. “We are pleased that the court has rejected all of the objections but the roster issue, and we will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns. If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and we will return to fighting the NCAA in court with next steps.”
Copyright 2025 KBTX. All rights reserved.