On May 7, the parties in House v. NCAA submitted supplemental briefs in response to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s April 23 order[1] requiring both parties to address her concerns over the issue of roster limits. These briefs (i) revised the terms of the proposed settlement agreement and (ii) detailed how the revisions would ensure “that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”[2]
The parties’ supplemental briefs, following the combined efforts of the parties and counsel for those individuals who objected to the proposed settlement based on the issue of roster limits, set forth certain exceptions to the roster limits for members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class. Specifically, the parties agreed to exempt two group of athletes: 1) those “who have or had a roster spot” on a Division I team during the 2024-2025 academic year (including those who transferred); and 2) those recruited athletes who will enroll in college for the 2025-2026 academic year and have been promised a Division I team roster spot for the coming academic year. To ensure these groups of athletes receive the protections necessary, these proposed roster limit exemptions, will (i) extend to conference roster limits and (ii) apply to schools where athletes are currently enrolled or will be enrolled if they transfer.
The revised proposed settlement agreement, amended a fourth time, makes two notable changes. First, the revised proposed settlement agreement defines a new term, “Designated Student-Athlete,” representing the two roster-limit exempt groups noted above. Second, schools will be allowed to exceed NCAA or conference roster limits with respect to any “Designated Student-Athletes” for the duration of their athletic eligibility.
Notably, both parties make clear that schools retain the authority and discretion to control their rosters, which includes whether to exceed the roster limits with respect to the Designated Student-Athletes.[3] However, Article 4 of the revised proposed settlement agreement permits Designated Student-Athletes to find a roster spot at another school and transfer there if the school where they are currently enrolled chooses not to exceed the roster limits to provide them a roster spot.
Immediately after the parties submitted the briefs and amended proposed settlement, Judge Wilken issued an order allowing the objectors who previously raised the roster limit issues the opportunity to respond to each supplemental brief by May 13. The parties may each then file a five-page or less reply by May 16.
[1] In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-03919 CW, Dkt. 948 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025) (Order).
[2] In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-03919 CW, Dkt. 958 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025) (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief); see also In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-03919 CW, Dkt. 959 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025) (Defendants’ Supplemental Brief).
[3] As of May 12, only one school has openly committed to exceeding the roster limits with respect to the Designated Student-Athletes.