What started as a swimmer’s lawsuit in 2020 has grown into a $2.8 billion tidal wave crashing through the NCAA’s century-old model, and it’s not done yet! Last year, the NCAA’s House antitrust settlement exploded into public view, offering long-awaited back pay for college athletes denied NIL rights before 2021. And the one who sits at the center of this storm is none other than TikTok star and LSU sensation Olivia Dunne. Despite all this, she stands to gain little under the current framework. So what did she have to say on this?

On Monday, LSU gymnastics star Olivia Dunne, one of the highest-earning female athletes in college sports, appeared via Zoom in a California courtroom to voice her objection. Not out of opposition to NIL rights, but because the deal, as written, shortchanges athletes like her. Dunne didn’t enter college sports as a nobody. When she committed to LSU in 2017, she already had a growing social media presence.

By the time she stepped on campus in 2020, she’d built an audience of millions on TikTok and Instagram. But while the brands were ready to invest, it seems the NCAA hadn’t caught up yet. “My value existed before NIL was legal. I don’t need to guess what I might have earned. I know I had a growing platform and millions of followers before I ever stepped foot onto a college campus,” Dunne told Judge Claudia Wilken.

She further continued, “Had NIL rules not restricted me, my value would’ve started higher, scaled faster, and grown even more.” While the $2.8 billion fund sounds like a windfall, nearly 90% of it is expected to go to football and men’s basketball players, sports that generate the most revenue. But if you think that’s all, then you are mistaken because things were about to get even more complicated.

Instead of paying that full amount in cash, the NCAA is likely to deduct more than 50% from the roughly $700 million it distributes annually to schools. That means less funding trickling down to programs already under-resourced. “This entire process defines athlete value based on the sport you played in and how much revenue your team brought in,” Dunne said. “But NIL is about more than wins and revenue.” So what’s next in the case?

Judge Wilken weighs the last call as objections surface

Judge Claudia Wilken now stands at a key moment. While she granted preliminary approval to the class action settlement back in October, her final decision isn’t locked in yet. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken held a final approval hearing in Oakland, California, to review the proposed $2.8 billion settlement that could change the landscape of college sports.

The deal, if approved, would allow schools to begin directly paying athletes starting July 1. But even with big changes on the line, Wilken didn’t rule from the bench. Not yet. The hearing felt familiar. It echoed last September’s preliminary approval hearing, when Wilken famously sent both sides “back to the drawing board,” mostly over the proposed restrictions on third-party NIL (name, image, and likeness) payments to college athletes.

That same topic resurfaced on Monday. Wilken questioned how the settlement would handle third-party NIL deals, especially those from collectives. Under the current version of the settlement, those payments would be allowed on top of revenue-sharing, but the existing NCAA ban on such deals would be lifted. Still, there’s tension. Athletes like Olivia Dunne have raised concerns about how back pay and payout fairness are being handled.

Dunne’s objection got airtime, but Wilken reminded her and others that without this settlement, there is no back pay at all. She’s given lawyers until next week to respond to the objections raised during the hearing and to submit fresh feedback on certain parts of the deal. So what now? As of now, Wilken has the power to approve the deal or scuttle it entirely.