House v. NCAA Settlement recently approved faces its first challenge, confirms CBS Sports. As indicated for the first time by Front Office SportsA collection of female sports athletes provides for the court’s decision, arguing that the structure of damage payments violates the status of gender equity IX. The regulation should pay $ 2.8 billion back to former athletes, but the funds are pending in a receipt account until the call process comes to a conclusion, said a NCAA liter in Brandon Marcello of CBS Sports.
Eight athletes have signed the appeal request, at least six of which were female sports athletes at the College of Charleston in recent years. The distance runner Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt) and the volleyball player Kate Johnson (Virginie) are also part of the Power Conference Institutions. Charleston’s athletes include Lexi Drumms, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold.
“We support a regulation of the case, but not inaccurate which breaks the federal law,” wrote the objecting lawyer John Clune in a press release at CBS Sports. “The calculation of damages is based on an error up to $ 1.1 billion. Payment of money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable damage to female sports. ”
The historic regulations of the Chamber should pay $ 2.8 billion in damages to athletes who could not win by the name, image and resemblance before it was legalized in 2021. In addition, it allows schools to share income directly with athletes for the first time.
“The regulations suggest that schools would have paid male athletes over 90% of their income in the past six years as if title IX did not apply,” wrote Clune. “If Nike wants to do it, it’s their choice. If the school or a conference acting on behalf of the school trying to do so, they violate the law. They can either pay the athletes in proportion or they can return all their federal funds. But they can’t do both. ”
Judge Claudia Wilken, who supervised the colony in the Northern District of California, left the door open for calls for title IX. However, it was not directly discussed in the regulations.
This story will be updated.