The landscape of college sports stands on the precipice of a seismic shift as the proposed $2.8 billion NCAA settlement faces mounting opposition from an unlikely source: the very athletes it purports to benefit. In a bold move, a Stanford football walk-on and a Temple gymnast have filed formal objections to the settlement, arguing that its provisions unfairly exclude non-scholarship players and threaten to decimate team rosters.
Walk-Ons Demand Inclusion in Compensation
At the heart of the controversy lies the settlement’s plan to distribute billions in back pay for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights—but only to scholarship athletes. David Kasemervisz, a four-year walk-on at Stanford, argues this is fundamentally unjust:
It is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation, whereas the teammate alongside him in the same game is worth nothing.
David Kasemervisz, Stanford walk-on athlete
Kasemervisz’s objection strikes at the core question: Do walk-ons not also contribute to their teams’ success and marketability? Many would argue they absolutely do, often serving as integral practice players and providing depth that allows starters to thrive. Excluding them from NIL back pay suggests their efforts are worthless—a bitter pill to swallow for athletes who sacrifice just as much as their scholarship peers.
Roster Limits Threaten Non-Scholarship Spots
The settlement’s attempt to expand scholarship opportunities also draws ire, as it proposes roster limits that could squeeze out walk-ons. Gymnast Emma Reathaford warns the restrictions:
…will harm thousands of student-athletes who have committed to Division I sports teams and will be cut from those teams.
Emma Reathaford, Temple gymnast
While more scholarships could benefit recruits, it may come at the expense of opportunities for walk-ons who depend on uncapped rosters to secure their place. For many, the chance to compete at the D1 level as an unrecruited athlete is a dream they’ve worked their entire lives to achieve. To have that snatched away feels like a betrayal.
Payments Setting “Artificial Restraints”
Even the settlement’s scholarship athlete payments face criticism for undervaluing players. An October filing by seven current and former athletes asserts the $20.5 million allocated per school falls far below market rates for NIL, functioning as a de facto cap on athlete compensation.
This raises concerns of subverting the very progress the Alston Supreme Court decision seemed to herald in allowing education-related athlete benefits. Are colleges still colluding to artificially limit earnings under the guise of reform? The objectors argue, if payments aren’t market-based, it’s just more of the same NCAA restraints in disguise.
A Landmark Hearing Looms
As the date of the settlement’s final hearing draws near, the impassioned pleas of these athletes thrust the flaws of the agreement under a microscope. Both Kasemervisz and Reathaford have requested to speak in the April 7th hearing—a chance to give voice to the thousands of players who stand to lose so much.
At stake is no less than the future of college sports as we know it. Will walk-ons retain a place in the NCAA ecosystem? Will “pay-for-play” live up to its promises of equity? Can a compromise be reached to satisfy scholarship and non-scholarship athletes alike?
Judge Claudia Wilken, who has presided over this momentous case, now faces an unenviable task: weighing the settlement’s potential to correct long-standing injustices against the claims that it introduces new ones. As the eyes of the sports world turn to her courtroom, the fate of countless young athletes hangs in the balance.
One thing is certain: this controversy is far from settled. The impassioned objections of these brave athletes have cracked open the door to a broader reckoning over the identity and values of the NCAA moving forward. Change is coming to college sports—but what form it takes is very much still up for debate.
