Athletes in $2.8 billion NCAA lawsuit tell judge they want to create a players' association

Three athletes whose lawsuits have prompted the pending $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement are calling for major structural changes beyond those established through the pending settlement, including enabling college athletes to bargain collectively through an independent players' association.

The three athletes -- Grant House, Sedona Prince and Nya Harrison -- issued their request in a Dec. 2 letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who is overseeing the settlement.

Although the letter lauds the terms of the settlement, House, Prince and Harrison warned that without player representation in negotiations with their schools and conferences, athletes would "inevitably remain in a vulnerable position" and the industry would remain mired in "continued litigation." They asked for the court to "lend its imprimatur" to athletes' efforts to collectively negotiate in the future through a players' association.

The NCAA and its schools remain adamantly opposed to athletes being viewed as employees, which is typically necessary for legally binding collective bargaining agreements. Judge Wilken is unlikely to play any role in forming or blessing a players' association, but the athletes' letter could have an impact on how she views the long-term success of the settlement.

Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer representing the class action plaintiffs, told ESPN he doesn't think the letter, which was provided to ESPN by Athletes.org, a year-old group attempting to organize college athletes and advocate on their behalf, will derail the process.

College officials are lobbying Congress for legislation that would prevent athletes from being deemed employees and forming unions while multiple attempts to unionize athletes are proceeding through the court system.

A hearing to grant final approval to the deal is scheduled to take place in early April.

The athletes, all three of whom are plaintiffs in antitrust cases included in the settlement, shared their concerns in the letter to Wilken.

"We need a players' association," the players wrote.

House, Prince and Harrison are all members of Athletes.org, which is among several budding organizations hoping to provide formal representation for athletes in the future even if the NCAA successfully blocks athletes from unionizing.

Wilken granted preliminary approval in September to a settlement in the House v. NCAA case that would pay roughly $2.8 billion in damages to former athletes and establish a new system for schools to directly pay their athletes starting next year. Under the terms of the 10-year deal, each school would be able to allocate more than $20 million per year for athletes' compensation -- a number that is expected to rise on an annual basis.

House, Prince and Harrison wrote that they still support the terms of the settlement and view it as "a significant step forward," but their letter portends the next front in a continuing battle to professionalize college sports, rather than a sustained peace that many in the college sports industry hope will come from the expensive deal.

Kessler, co-lead attorney for all Division I athletes in the class action lawsuits, told ESPN the athletes had advised him of the letter to Wilken and said he did not have an issue with their decision.

"I think the settlement is incredible for college sports, but it does not solve every issue in the world," Kessler said. "The fact they might also need a players' association is a valid point. I have no problem with it."

The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Leaders from the NCAA and its most powerful conferences have said they are optimistic that the settlement, combined with proposed federal legislation that provides them with some protection from future antitrust lawsuits, would help schools regain some control over the college sports industry.

The settlement includes provisions that would cap how much each team could pay its athletes and restrict boosters from paying more to players as a recruiting incentive, which athletic directors and conference commissioners say is necessary to maintain competitive balance.

In professional sports, those types of caps are negotiated between the leagues and a players' association via collective bargaining agreements. House, Prince and Harrison wrote that any future system for college sports that doesn't give the athletes a substantial voice in the decision-making process is bound to produce more courtroom fights.

"While professional leagues include athletes in these decisions through their respective players associations, the college system continues to prevent our players association from representing us at the decision-making tables," they wrote.

Wilken is not obligated to respond to the athletes, but their concerns could inform whether she decides to grant final approval to the settlement. A group of state lawmakers also publicly raised concerns last week about how the settlement clashed with laws they have authored about college athletes' rights to earn money in their states.

Athletes and other parties can file formal objections to the terms of the settlement through the end of January.