LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, one of the most-followed college athletes on social media, spoke out against the NCAA’s $2.8 billion House settlement during the final hearing on Monday. Dunne was among four athletes who testified in opposition to the proposed deal. She criticized the method used to calculate an athlete’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) value, arguing that the formula undervalued her worth and failed to reflect her true market potential.

LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, one of the most-followed college athletes on social media, spoke out against the NCAA’s $2.8 billion House settlement during the final hearing on Monday.

Dunne was among four athletes who testified in opposition to the proposed deal. She criticized the method used to calculate an athlete’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) value, arguing that the formula undervalued her worth and failed to reflect her true market potential.

Olivia Dunne, speaking during the final hearing on the NCAA’s $2.8 billion House settlement, described herself as “a Division I athlete, a businesswoman, and the highest-earning female athlete since the NIL rules changed.” She argued that the proposed settlement fails to reflect her actual worth, both as an athlete and as a brand.

Dunne criticized the valuation model used in the settlement, stating, “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, the deals we lost, and the future we could have had.”

Following her testimony, a plaintiffs’ attorney acknowledged her concerns and stated that Dunne would receive an updated allocation to more accurately reflect her value in the evolving NIL landscape.

The House settlement, named after Arizona State swimmer Grant House, is a landmark agreement that would allow schools to directly pay college athletes up to 22% of their revenue from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Athletes would still be permitted to receive outside NIL deals from third parties and sponsors.

According to NOLA.com, the settlement is expected to distribute over $2.5 billion in backpay and damages to athletes who were unable to benefit from NIL opportunities prior to the NCAA’s rule change in 2021. However, the report notes that the majority of these funds will go to former football and men’s basketball players from Power Five conferences, since those sports historically generate the highest revenue.

This distribution model has sparked debate, particularly among high-profile athletes like Olivia Dunne, who argue that the settlement does not fully account for individual market value or the missed financial potential of athletes in non-revenue sports.

As part of the proposed House settlement, a clearinghouse would be established to review and verify all NIL deals exceeding $600, ensuring they are aligned with fair market value. This measure is aimed at preventing “pay-for-play” arrangements, where compensation is directly tied to athletic performance or recruitment incentives.

During Monday’s final hearing, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken listened to various concerns raised by athletes like Olivia Dunne and others. However, she gave no indication that those objections had swayed her stance on the settlement. While she acknowledged the issues brought forward and requested updated feedback from attorneys on several key topics, her overall tone suggested cautious support.

“Basically I think it is a good settlement—don’t quote me—and I think it’s worth pursuing,” Wilken stated. “I think some of these things could be fixed if people tried to fix them and that it would be worth their while to try to fix them.”*

A final decision from Judge Wilken is expected in the coming weeks, and it will determine whether the NCAA’s new compensation framework for college athletes will move forward as proposed.

Judge Claudia Wilken has already granted preliminary approval of the landmark $2.8 billion House settlement involving the NCAA and its five largest conferences. The settlement, which would reshape how college athletes are compensated for their name, image, and likeness (NIL), is currently slated to take effect on July 1.

While Wilken listened to final arguments and concerns from athletes—including LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne—during Monday’s hearing, she gave no sign of reversing her stance. Her formal ruling is still pending, but the judge has signaled she views the agreement as a constructive and workable framework, despite some areas needing improvement.

If finalized, the settlement would mark a historic shift in college sports, allowing direct revenue sharing with athletes and setting a new precedent for how student-athletes are compensated moving forward.

Following Monday’s pivotal hearing, the NCAA released an official statement emphasizing the importance of the proposed House settlement in reshaping the future of college athletics.

“Today’s hearing on the landmark settlement was a significant step in modernizing college sports,” the NCAA said. “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.”

The statement reflects the NCAA’s strong support for the agreement, which would authorize schools to share a portion of revenue—up to 22% directly—with athletes, while also offering over $2.5 billion in backpay to athletes who competed before the 2021 NIL rule change. When combined with third-party NIL deals, the total earnings potential for student-athletes could approach half of total athletic department revenues.

As the sports world awaits Judge Claudia Wilken’s final decision, expected in the coming weeks, this statement reinforces the NCAA’s stance that the settlement is not only a resolution of past disputes but also a critical step toward a more equitable future in college sports.