[dabigv13]

A Stanford preferred walk-on WR, David Kasemervisz, also submitted an objection to the House settlement. 

Kasemervisz, a wide receiver and special teams player over the last four seasons, objects to the settlement limiting recovery to full grant-in-aid players as part of the “settlement football and men’s basketball class.” That class covers Power Five basketball and football players who competed from 2016 to 2024. Kasemervisz was a preferred walk-on, meaning he didn’t have to try out for the team. However, Kasemervisz notes, he “did not receive the same financial benefits” as a grant-in-aid player.

Kasemervisz emphasizes that everything about his experience playing football at Stanford, including time spent on practices, training, attending meetings and satisfying athletic and academic standards, resembled the experiences of his teammates. He played in games that were broadcast on TV and his NIL was used.

Kasemervisz adds that some of his teammates who were grant-in-aid players likely played less than him, and yet they are class members. He argues “it is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation” when that player’s teammate was “in the same game.” Since whether a college athlete can earn NIL compensation is unrelated to whether that athlete is on athletic scholarship, among other possible student athlete distinctions that have no bearing to NIL, Kasemervisz maintains the settlement is deficiently constructed.

To remedy this defect, Kasemervisz proposes the class definition be expanded to include Power 5 athletes who “actively participated” and thus contributed to the broadcast revenue. He suggests one “easily verifiable measure” would be to consider presence on a roster. Another option, he notes, would be to weigh games played/snap count.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234825408/

Seems to have a good point from my perspective. Of course the more people trying to get paid, the less there is to go around. Every walk-on football player getting a share means athletes in other sports or scholarship football players are getting less.

[dabigv13]

A Stanford preferred walk-on WR, David Kasemervisz, also submitted an objection to the House settlement. 

Kasemervisz, a wide receiver and special teams player over the last four seasons, objects to the settlement limiting recovery to full grant-in-aid players as part of the “settlement football and men’s basketball class.” That class covers Power Five basketball and football players who competed from 2016 to 2024. Kasemervisz was a preferred walk-on, meaning he didn’t have to try out for the team. However, Kasemervisz notes, he “did not receive the same financial benefits” as a grant-in-aid player.

Kasemervisz emphasizes that everything about his experience playing football at Stanford, including time spent on practices, training, attending meetings and satisfying athletic and academic standards, resembled the experiences of his teammates. He played in games that were broadcast on TV and his NIL was used.

Kasemervisz adds that some of his teammates who were grant-in-aid players likely played less than him, and yet they are class members. He argues “it is not fair that athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL on the field is worth significant broadcast compensation” when that player’s teammate was “in the same game.” Since whether a college athlete can earn NIL compensation is unrelated to whether that athlete is on athletic scholarship, among other possible student athlete distinctions that have no bearing to NIL, Kasemervisz maintains the settlement is deficiently constructed.

To remedy this defect, Kasemervisz proposes the class definition be expanded to include Power 5 athletes who “actively participated” and thus contributed to the broadcast revenue. He suggests one “easily verifiable measure” would be to consider presence on a roster. Another option, he notes, would be to weigh games played/snap count.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/20...234825408/

Seems to have a good point from my perspective. Of course the more people trying to get paid, the less there is to go around. Every walk-on football player getting a share means athletes in other sports or scholarship football players are getting less.