Judge in NCAA settlement case denies Houston Christian's motion to intervene

A federal judge on Wednesday removed one hurdle to the approval of the proposed settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied a request from Houston Christian University, a member of the Football Championship Subdivision, to intervene in the case and that she declare the proposed agreement to be "void and of no effect."

Wilken also blocked Houston Christian (HCU) from objecting to the proposed settlement, saying that it because it is not a member of the class of plaintiffs involved in the case, it lacks the legal standing to object.

The school “may not re-package the arguments it made in support of the present motion to intervene as objections to the settlement agreement once the settlement agreement is filed for the Court’s approval,” Wilken wrote.

Had Wilken allowed HCU to intervene in the case and object, it is possible that other schools outside the Power Five (now Power Four) conferences would have attempted to follow suit.

"This is a great start to the judicial review process and Judge Wilken saw the hypocrisy of this motion," Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the athlete plaintiffs in the three cases that would covered by the proposed settlement, wrote email. Houston Christian "has benefited by not paying athletes a fair share and now objects when it's called to pay out. Shame on them."

The NCAA also lauded the ruling with a statement that said, in part: "The judge spoke clearly in her decision. The NCAA already has made significant changes to deliver more benefits to student-athletes ... and this settlement will provide continued support to student-athletes far into the future."

James Bryant, an attorney for HCU said: "I respect the judge's decision. She has worked very hard on this case. But I disagree with (the ruling). And I suspect there will be an appeal or further litigation in another forum."

There are strong indications that challenges to the proposed settlement — which is set to be formally submitted to Wilken’s court in California this week — are not done.

Lawyers representing in a case against the NCAA and the power conferences regarding athlete compensation that is continuing in federal court in Colorado on Tuesday filed an amended version of their lawsuit that adds three athlete plaintiffs and some new allegations that reference the proposed settlement in California.

The judge in that case denied in May a request from the NCAA and the conferences to move the proceeding from Colorado to California, where an effort would have been made to consolidate it with the other three cases or have it dismissed.

Tuesday’s filing means there are now five named plaintiffs in the Colorado case, whose lead plaintiff is former Colorado football Alex Fontenot. Among those plaintiffs is current Colorado golfer Tucker Clark and former Vanderbilt soccer player Sarah Fuller, who gained renown in 2020 for also playing for the Commodores football team as a kicker .

Any or all of those plaintiffs could object to the proposed settlement, which would include damages to former and current athletes of about $2.8 billion and the would allow schools to starting paying athletes. The amounts schools could allocate for those payments initially would be guided by a cap of 22% of the combined total of certain revenues of Power Five conference schools.

The new version of the suit in Colorado alleges that “even if that settlement is approved, it would simply usher is a new, artificially low cap that is far below the revenue sharing that a competitive market would yield. While it is an admission that amateurism is not needed, it also simply substitutes one illegal price fix for another.”

The complaint says it “takes aim at the full cut of television and other revenues that the athletes would receive in a truly open market.”

The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction that would bar any NCAA rules that prevent such an open market — basically the creation of a formalized pay-for-play system in which athletes can be paid by their schools for their athletic services. They seek to represent all athletes who played for an NCAA Division I team in any sport from roughly 2020 through a judgment in the case. And they are seeking damages covering money that they allege all of those athletes would have received — another multi-billion-dollar award.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Judge in NCAA settlement case denies Houston Christian's motion to intervene