On Friday, attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a proposed multi-billion-dollar settlement concerning three cases of athlete compensation against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences expressed strong criticism towards the recent opposition to the deal. This response came after several filings were submitted last week, urging a federal judge in California to deny preliminary approval of the settlement.

The objections raised last week highlighted several concerns regarding the deal, such as potential undervaluation of claims, discrimination against female athletes, the introduction of illegal limits on compensation, and questionable fee structures for the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

In their response on Friday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated: “The objections brought forth claiming that this significant settlement doesn’t meet the preliminary approval standards are without merit. The relief offered is comparable to what class members might expect to achieve at trial, albeit after many more years of uncertain litigation.”

The plaintiffs’ legal team pointed out that the proposed modifications to NCAA regulations that would come with an injunction, as well as the various financial claims, were thoroughly analyzed during negotiation sessions with mediator Eric Green. They included a written, signed statement from Green to substantiate this. Green also indicated that “any attorney fee arrangements related to the injunctive relief settlement were only discussed once the overall settlement, including damages, was finalized.”

The attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that the objection regarding the settlement being “inadequate because it doesn’t eliminate all limits on compensation” lacks validity. They argued that a settlement inherently involves compromise and does not need to abolish all future restrictions on competition to be deemed reasonable and sufficient.