In a historic move, the NCAA recently agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement in the House v. NCAA case, a decision that has wide-reaching implications for the future of college sports. However, what should have been a landmark moment for student-athletes has instead highlighted a troubling reality: those most affected by the decision—the athletes themselves—were largely excluded from the negotiation process. Now, as the dust settles, we are finally hearing from them, but only because they have been given the opportunity to object rather than meaningfully contribute to shaping the agreement.
Gymnastics star and social media influencer Olivia Dunne is among those raising concerns. In a letter submitted to the court, Dunne expressed her dissatisfaction with the way the settlement treats athletes who have benefited from the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era. Under the current terms, high-profile athletes like Dunne—who have built their brands in the NIL space—would receive less compensation than athletes who competed before the NIL rules changed. Essentially, the deal prioritizes those who were unable to profit under previous NCAA restrictions while offering little to those currently thriving in the new system. Dunne’s objection underscores a key issue: while the settlement seeks to address past injustices, it does so at the expense of athletes who have successfully navigated the evolving landscape.
She is not alone in voicing frustration. According to Front Office Sports, multiple student-athletes have opted out of the settlement, raising concerns about how the deal was structured and who truly benefits from it. Many have noted that the negotiation process largely excluded the very people it affects most. While the NCAA, universities, and legal representatives made decisions behind closed doors, student-athletes were left without a direct seat at the table. This dynamic has led to skepticism about whether the settlement is truly in their best interest or simply a way for the NCAA to resolve legal challenges without fundamentally changing its power structure.
This lack of direct athlete involvement reflects a broader pattern in college athletics: decision-making that prioritizes institutions over individuals. For years, athletes fought for the right to earn money from their own name, image, and likeness, and only after external legal and legislative pressures did the NCAA finally relent. Now, with billions on the line in the House settlement, history seems to be repeating itself. The NCAA and its member schools have made a deal that shapes the financial future of college sports, yet student-athletes were effectively reduced to spectators in the process.
The NCAA’s reluctance to fully engage athletes in key decisions is not just a failure of governance—it is a missed opportunity. Had student-athletes been actively involved in shaping the settlement, it could have been a moment of true progress, one that balanced reparations for past wrongs with fairness for current competitors. Instead, athletes are left to respond after the fact, forced to object rather than participate.
As the legal process continues, it is clear that the fight for athlete empowerment is far from over. The voices of student-athletes should not just be heard when it is convenient—they should be central to the decision-making process from the start.
