In a pivotal hearing on Monday, LSU gymnast and social media sensation Olivia Dunne took a bold stance against the NCAA’s $2.8 billion House settlement, voicing strong opposition to the formula used to calculate athlete compensation under the deal. As one of the most prominent female collegiate athletes, Dunne’s testimony added a high-profile and personal dimension to the growing debate over fair compensation in the evolving world of college sports.
Dunne, one of four athletes who testified against the deal, argued that the method used to determine her name, image, and likeness (NIL) value under the proposed settlement dramatically underestimates her worth.
“I am a Division I athlete, a businesswoman, and I’ve been the highest-earning female athlete since the NIL rules changed,” she said. “This settlement uses old logic to calculate modern value. It takes a narrow snapshot of a still maturing market and freezes it, ignoring the trajectory we were on and the deals we lost and the future we could have had.”
The House settlement—named after Arizona State swimmer Grant House—aims to reshape how revenue is shared in college athletics. If approved, it would permit schools to directly allocate 22% of revenue from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships to athletes for their NIL. Additionally, more than $2.5 billion would be distributed to athletes who were unable to benefit from NIL before the NCAA’s rule change in 2021.
While the deal is being hailed by the NCAA as a historic step toward modernizing college athletics, it remains controversial. Critics like Dunne believe the proposed formula disproportionately benefits past players in revenue-heavy sports like football and men’s basketball, while undervaluing athletes in other sports who have become NIL powerhouses in the current landscape.
A plaintiffs’ attorney later responded to Dunne’s concerns, suggesting that her NIL compensation would be reassessed to better reflect her market value. However, the broader settlement still calls for a centralized NIL clearinghouse, which would require that any deal over $600 be evaluated for fair market value, in an effort to prevent under-the-table pay-for-play arrangements.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over the hearing, acknowledged the concerns but gave no indication that the objections would alter the outcome. While not issuing a ruling, she expressed cautious optimism.
“Basically I think it is a good settlement, don’t quote me, and I think it’s worth pursuing,” Wilken remarked, noting that refinements could still be made to address specific criticisms.
The NCAA, meanwhile, stood by the agreement, stating, “Today’s hearing on the landmark settlement was a significant step in modernizing college sports. If approved, the settlement will allow student-athletes the opportunity to receive nearly 50% of athletic department revenue in a sustainable and fair system for years to come.”
With final approval expected in the coming weeks and implementation set for July 1, the outcome of this case could reshape the financial landscape of college sports. But as Olivia Dunne and other athletes continue to voice their concerns, the conversation around what is truly “fair” in the NIL era remains far from settled.
