NCAA Athletes’ Lawyers Oppose Houston Christian University Intervention

The multibillion-dollar, but still unfinished and unclassified, proposed settlement to convert major college sports to a professional model was recently challenged by Houston Christian University, but lawyers for the players at the Home, Carter And Hubbard Antitrust litigation on Friday asked Judge Claudia Wilken to reject HCU’s bid.

In a seven-page opposition motion filed by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, the plaintiffs argue that HCU’s intervention motion is “premature and without merit.”

As detailed by SporticoLast month, HCU became the first, and so far only, Division I school to legally oppose the proposed settlement.

HCU, which like other NCAA schools is not a named defendant, insists it had no say or opportunity to influence the proposed settlement. The deal would require DI schools to foot part of a roughly $2.7 billion bill for compensation for players who were denied NIL, broadcast money and video game revenue because of the NCAA’s amateurism rules. The deal also calls for participating schools to adhere to a $21 million salary cap in a pro-sports-style model. HCU maintains the deal would be financially ruinous and would force school officials to breach their fiduciary duties to students and other members of the community. While other schools have not joined HCU, leaders at some of them have expressed similar grievances and concerns and complained that the deal was rushed and without transparency.

Berman and Kessler raise several counterarguments.

They argue that HCU, an “unnamed co-conspirator” of the NCAA, would have no standing. At this point, Berman and Kessler belittle HCU for raising “hypothetical concerns” since the parties have not yet filed a preliminary approval motion to submit to Wilken (they are expected to do so by July 15). HCU’s claims about the terms and impact of the deal are dismissed as “mere” “conjecture” that cannot be acted upon.

The lawyers also argue that “contrary to HCU’s speculation,” the agreement contemplates “all potential future payments by universities to college athletes” as “voluntary” – just as, as Berman and Kessler point out, it is voluntary for universities to play in DI and remain members of the NCAA.

Berman and Kessler also argue that HCU’s interests are “adequately protected by existing parties that have identical interests.”

They insist that the NCAA, as a membership organization, “speaks” for HCU and the other member schools. Berman and Kessler add that the NCAA board of directors, which is supposed to represent college athletics, “voted on the broad terms of the agreement.” According to the lawyers, “HCU’s ex post facto disagreement with the outcome of the vote” is not grounds for intervention.

Finally, Berman and Kessler accuse HCU of distorting the timeline. They maintain that HCU knew about the litigation from Home was filed in 2020, and if HCU did not feel adequately represented by the NCAA and powerful conferences, HCU “should have (and could have) stepped in long ago.”

HCU could respond to the request and counter several points. It will be interesting to see if other schools join HCU or if athletes oppose the deal. The more opposition there is to the deal, the more Wilken will have to weigh the pros and cons.