As attorneys prepare to submit their long-form settlement for preliminary court approval of the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust lawsuits (“the House settlement”), a fourth case, Fontenot v. NCAA, expanded this week with new named plaintiffs and a blunter warning that a House settlement ought not function as a labor agreement.
On Tuesday, Fontenot attorneys filed an amended complaint adding four other names to the case caption: Mya Hollingshed, Sarah Fuller, Deontay Anderson and Tucker Clark. The quartet joins original complainant Alex Fontenot, a former University of Colorado running back.
Fuller, a former star soccer player at Vanderbilt, made college football history in 2020, becoming the first female to score in a Power 5 football game by kicking an extra point in a contest against Tennessee. She later gave a video introduction to Vice President Kamala Harris at the 2021 presidential inauguration.
Hollingshed, who played college basketball at Colorado, was the No. 8 pick in the 2022 WNBA Draft, and is set to represent Puerto Rico in the Paris Olympics. In 2022, she earned All-Pac-12 honors while leading the Buffalos to their first NCAA Tournament bid in nearly decade.
Anderson is a former football player at Ole Miss and Houston—and current UFL player—while Clark played golf at both Colorado and Notre Dame.
The antitrust case challenges the NCAA’s Bylaw 12, which prohibits athletes from receiving direct compensation related to their athletic endeavors. Specifically, Fontenot targets the billions of dollars in television revenue generated in recent years.
In May, U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney ruled against consolidating Fontenot with another case, Carter v. NCAA. Even though the cases raise comparable allegations under antitrust law—namely that NCAA member schools, which are competing businesses, conspire through NCAA rules to deprive athletes of compensation they would earn in a less restricted market—the case is being litigated in a different jurisdiction, Colorado. Although attorneys for House believe Fontenot will eventually be incorporated into the settlement, that’s a point of debate at this stage.
In their amended complaint, Fontenot’s lawyers refine their reasoning as to why their case should proceed despite the prospective House settlement.
“(E)ven if that settlement is approved,” the latest filing states, “it would simply usher in a new, artificially low cap that is far below the revenue sharing that a competitive market would yield. While it is an admission that amateurism is not needed, it also simply substitutes one illegal price fix for another.”
Put differently, the amended complaint reflects the limitation of the settlement concept. A settlement is not a collective bargaining agreement that would insulate its terms from antitrust scrutiny. College athletes, outside of Dartmouth men’s basketball players, are not yet recognized as employees and thus cannot unionize and negotiate a labor agreement.
Fontenot, the amended complaint charges, would offer a more equitable and robust remedy for the players. The case purports to pursue the “full amount of compensation that these athletes truly deserve,” by challenging Bylaw 12 and other rules specifically invoked in House.
“And it therefore takes aim at the full cut of television and other revenues that the athletes would receive in a truly open market,” the complaint stated.
If nothing else, the filing serves as a reminder that while the NCAA hopes the House settlement will cure its legal woes, it can’t stop other antitrust lawsuits—including an expanded Fontenot.
