Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—SETTLEMENTS—E.D. Cal.: NCAA’s $300 million settlement involving volunteer coaches receives preliminary approval, (Jan 8, 2026)

By Brian Craig

The proposed $300 million settlement resolves antitrust challenges to a since-repealed NCAA bylaw barring “volunteer coaches” from receiving pay.

The federal district court in Sacramento, California has given preliminary approval of proposed settlement of $300 million to resolve claims by coaches that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by barring “volunteer coaches” from receiving pay. The proposed settlement, subject to a final approval hearing in May later this year, includes up to 30% in attorney fees for the plaintiffs’ counsel and service awards for the class representatives in the amount of $25,000 each, for a total of $125,000. The preliminary $300 million settlement in this case involving all coaches comes after the court approved a $49.25 million settlement last year in related litigation involving former “volunteer” baseball coaches (Ray v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026)).

The settlement stems from allegations that the NCAA and its member institutions conspired to limit the compensation of assistant coaches. The lawsuit contended that the NCAA’s policies and agreements suppressed the coaches' salaries in violation of antitrust laws with a since-repealed NCAA bylaw barring “volunteer coaches” from receiving pay. For years, NCAA Division I rules limited the number of paid coaching spots and mandated that any additional coaches, called “volunteers,” receive no pay or benefits from the athletic department. The suit alleges wage-fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Related litigation. In a related case, Smart v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025)), the court finally approved a $49.25 million settlement to resolves antitrust claims involving compensation practices for former “volunteer” baseball coaches. In the related case, while the payouts will vary, class members are expected to, on average, receive close to $50,000 each.

Notice and settlement terms. The court approved the proposed notice and gave preliminary approval of the settlement terms in this case. The court found that the proposed notice to class members procedures appears reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise all class members of the proposed settlement. Given the extensive discovery and litigation conducted prior to settlement and counsel’s representation that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining, the court at this stage did not question that the proposed settlement is the result of informed and non-collusive negotiations between the parties.

The court also found that the value of the settlement, at $300 million, is within the range of possible approval such that preliminary approval of the settlement is appropriate. In addition, the court concluded that the method of processing class member claims to be adequate, as each class member’s share of the settlement will be calculated on an individual basis by plaintiffs’ expert based on factors including school, sport, and length of employment.

Attorney fees. The proposed settlement includes attorney fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount. The court will decide at the final settlement hearing whether the attorney fee is reasonable by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours counsel reasonably expended.

Compensation for class representatives. The proposed settlement includes service awards for the class representatives in the amount of $25,000 each, for a total of $125,000. The court observed that the service award is unusually high and that service awards of $5,000 are more typical. In light of the unusually high amount of the service award requested, and the number of class representatives listed, the court advised class counsel to provide a more substantial report in the motion for final approval of the class representatives’ contributions to this action meriting the requested award amounts, which should also explain the necessity for having five representatives.

Final approval. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2026 in Sacramento. At the final fairness hearing, the court will determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by this court. In the meantime, class members can choose to opt out of the settlement or submit objections.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK.

Judge: Shubb, W.

Attorneys: Abou Amara (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) for Shannon Ray. Carolyn Luedtke (Munger Tolles & Olson LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Cases: WageHour ClassActions EmployeeStatus CaliforniaNews