A Notre Dame star criticized the NCAA’s “tragic” proposal in the $2.8B settlement, arguing it undermines athlete rights and fails to address key issues.

In recent months, the NCAA has been embroiled in controversy surrounding its treatment of college athletes and a monumental $2.8 billion settlement. The settlement emerged as part of a broader lawsuit involving former athletes claiming that the NCAA and its member schools engaged in anti-competitive practices by restricting athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). While the settlement may seem like a step forward in addressing some of the concerns surrounding collegiate athletics, one prominent figure has sharply criticized the proposal—arguing that it fundamentally undermines athlete rights and fails to address the root causes of exploitation in college sports.

This critic, a Notre Dame star athlete, has voiced strong opposition to the terms of the settlement, calling it “tragic” and insufficient in resolving the systemic issues within the NCAA. The athlete’s stance reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the NCAA’s handling of athletes’ rights and highlights broader concerns about the future of college sports in America. In this article, we will break down the criticisms leveled by the Notre Dame star, explore the implications of the settlement, and examine how these criticisms fit into the larger conversation about athletes’ rights, NCAA reforms, and the commercialization of college sports.

The $2.8B Settlement: A Brief Overview

The $2.8 billion settlement stems from a series of lawsuits filed against the NCAA, including cases involving former players who alleged that the organization’s restrictions on athletes’ NIL rights were anticompetitive. Specifically, the NCAA had long prohibited athletes from profiting off their name, image, and likeness, a restriction that was widely criticized for perpetuating the exploitation of college athletes.

In 2021, the NCAA’s long-standing policy on NIL was challenged and ultimately overturned, giving athletes the right to profit from endorsements, merchandise sales, and other business opportunities related to their personal brand. However, the lawsuits argued that the NCAA’s previous actions caused significant financial harm to players and prevented them from enjoying the economic benefits of their labor during their college careers.

The $2.8 billion settlement is intended to compensate former athletes who played college sports between 2000 and 2014, a time when the NCAA was particularly aggressive in its enforcement of NIL restrictions. The settlement is designed to provide compensation to thousands of former players, with the funds allocated to cover lost NIL opportunities, legal fees, and other damages. The deal also includes a set of reforms designed to provide more opportunities for athletes moving forward.

Despite the seemingly positive aspects of the settlement, many critics argue that it fails to adequately address the deeper issues within the NCAA’s treatment of athletes, particularly in terms of their ability to control and benefit from their own likeness and labor.

The Notre Dame Star’s Criticism: A Focus on Athlete Rights

The Notre Dame star who has criticized the NCAA’s settlement proposal is using his platform to shed light on what he sees as a “tragic” misstep in the organization’s approach to resolving the issues of athlete exploitation. The athlete, whose identity has been withheld for privacy reasons, argues that the settlement fails to deliver real, long-term improvements for college athletes.

One of the primary concerns raised by the Notre Dame star is that the settlement does not go far enough in providing athletes with meaningful control over their name, image, and likeness. While the NIL rights issue has been resolved in the legal sense, the athlete argues that the settlement terms are still restrictive in ways that will prevent athletes from fully capitalizing on their personal brands. In particular, the athlete points out that the settlement does not fully guarantee athletes the ability to profit freely without interference from the NCAA or schools.

Instead of focusing on empowering athletes to have more autonomy in their business ventures, the settlement is seen as a patchwork solution that gives athletes some rights but does not remove the underlying power structures that allow the NCAA and schools to continue exploiting them. The Notre Dame star argues that without deeper structural changes to how college sports operate, athletes will continue to be sidelined by the very institutions that profit immensely from their talent.

A Failure to Address Systemic Issues

Another key criticism voiced by the Notre Dame athlete is that the settlement does not address the systemic issues that underlie the commercialization of college sports. While NIL rights have been a major point of contention, the broader question of whether athletes should be compensated beyond scholarships is still up for debate.

The Notre Dame star argues that the settlement is a short-term fix for a much larger problem—the NCAA’s refusal to fully embrace the idea that college athletes deserve to be compensated fairly for the immense revenue they generate. The athlete points out that college football, basketball, and other high-profile sports generate billions of dollars each year through media rights deals, merchandise sales, ticket sales, and sponsorships. Yet, the athletes who drive this revenue remain underpaid, often receiving nothing more than scholarships that cover only a portion of their expenses.

In the case of many football players and basketball players, scholarships do not cover the full cost of living, and athletes are often left struggling to make ends meet. This disparity has led to increasing calls for the NCAA to pay athletes directly or create a more comprehensive system that allows them to share in the financial windfall generated by their sports.

While the settlement addresses NIL rights to a degree, it does not go far enough in ensuring that athletes are compensated for their labor in a more equitable way. The Notre Dame star argues that the NCAA is still clinging to an outdated model that views athletes as amateurs, despite the fact that college sports are a highly commercialized, professionalized industry.

The Tragic Flaws of the Settlement Proposal

The Notre Dame star’s characterization of the settlement as “tragic” reflects a sense of missed opportunity. The athlete argues that the NCAA had a chance to enact real reform—both in terms of NIL rights and athlete compensation—yet chose a path that fails to address the heart of the issue.

One of the tragic aspects of the settlement, according to the Notre Dame athlete, is that it reinforces the notion that athletes are subordinate to the interests of schools and the NCAA. By compensating former athletes for their NIL losses without guaranteeing future athletes the same level of freedom and opportunity, the settlement reinforces the idea that athletes are still at the mercy of the NCAA and the educational institutions they play for.

The Notre Dame athlete’s frustration also stems from the fact that the settlement is framed as a way to compensate athletes for past wrongs, but it does little to prevent those wrongs from continuing in the future. With the NCAA still controlling much of the framework around college athletics, the athlete fears that future generations of college athletes will continue to face the same struggles and barriers that the current crop has.

A Call for Genuine Change

The Notre Dame star’s criticism of the $2.8 billion settlement is part of a larger movement advocating for systemic reform within college athletics. This movement calls for a shift toward greater athlete empowerment, including better compensation, greater autonomy over their careers, and a clearer path to financial stability. Advocates argue that college athletes should not only be able to profit from their NIL but should also be compensated for the labor and revenue they generate for their schools and the NCAA.

For many, the goal is to move away from the outdated model of college sports as an amateur pursuit and toward a system that recognizes the reality that college athletes are professionals in every sense but name. The criticism voiced by the Notre Dame star is a clear indication that, while the NCAA may have taken some steps forward, it has a long way to go before addressing the full scope of athlete rights and compensation.