������Ƶ

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A former Missouri football player and current MU swimmer have filed objections to the pending $2.8 billion legal settlement that stands to reshape the structure of college sports.

D’Andre McKenzie, a walk-on cornerback who spent four seasons with the Tigers (2012-2015), and Seth Cannon, a freshman swimmer, submitted written objections this week to a settlement in the ongoing House v. NCAA case, a piece of federal litigation that, if approved, will add revenue sharing with athletes to college sports and deliver backpay damages to more than 100,000 current and former athletes.

McKenzie’s objection is concerned with the distinction between scholarship and walk-on athletes in the ability to receive those damages — walk-ons cannot receive the same backpay as athletes who were on scholarship. He argues that as a walk-on, he should be eligible for the same compensation as scholarship athletes.

As currently constructed, the settlement does not offer back payments to non-scholarship athletes. Through the addition of roster limits, the settlement also would functionally remove walk-ons from college sports — two developments that have been .

“It truly is not right or fair that an athletic scholarship status alone determines that one player’s NIL (name, image, likeness) on and off the field is worth significant broadcast compensation,” McKenzie wrote in his objection, “whereas the teammate alongside him in the same games and settings are worth nothing at all. It was difficult enough as a PWO (preferred walk-on) having to do twice as much work for the same reward in college and I would hope that in the real world things would be seen a little more fair of a light.”

Cannon’s objection, which includes letters from his parents, concerns the creation of roster limits as part of the settlement, which overall expands the number of scholarships available but restricts participation for athletes who don’t receive scholarships — leading to roster cuts in Olympic sports in particular. According to Cannon’s objection, MU’s swimming and diving coaches will have to reduce their roster size by approximately 10 athletes.

“I would be lying if I said the House vs. NCAA settlement has not been hanging over our heads all year,” Cannon wrote. “It has been a black cloud over the entire team as well as the coaching staff, who are not looking forward to cutting the roster down to 22 men and 30 women because of this settlement. I know there are countless swimmers, including myself, who are worried about their futures. I genuinely have no idea where I will be living this time next year.”

He wrote bluntly about the pressure that impending roster cuts places on current athletes looking to continue competing.

“My future collegiate career is decided entirely by my performance in the pool this year, which adds a heavy layer of stress to every meet,” Cannon wrote. “Every time I step up on the blocks, I know I am swimming for my spot next year. I am swimming for my spot among the 22. It (stinks). It really does. It (stinks) to see the toll it takes on my teammates, and how much they worry about where they are going to be this time next year. ... It has been a struggle to maintain focus with roster cuts looming. I do not want NIL money. What I want is the scholarship I earned and the opportunity to continue my career as a Mizzou Tiger so that I can stop worrying about my future.”

McKenzie and Cannon directed their objections to Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court in California’s northern district, where the case is proceeding. The deadline for objections to be filed was Friday.

Wilken will hold a hearing April 7 to decide whether she’ll issue final approval for the settlement, which received preliminary approval in October. Despite waves of objections such as McKenzie’s, the settlement is expected to proceed forward — though concerns raised through these filings could modify it.

If it receives final approval, it will be a revolutionary change for college sports, permitting schools to share approximately $20.5 million of revenue with athletes each year and introducing roster limits for each sport — in addition to the backpay component at the core of McKenzie’s argument.

Hailing from Lee’s Summit, Missouri, McKenzie walked on with Mizzou, where he argues his name, image and likeness were used in “broadcast television, posters, news segments and other media.” He’s asking Wilken to modify the definition of which athletes are eligible under the football and men’s basketball class to “include ALL Power 5 athletes who actively participated and contributed to their team.” (The all-caps emphasis is his.)

The line between a scholarship athlete — referred to as “Grant-In-Aid” in court filings — and a walk-on is too ambiguous for that distinction to be made in the settlement, he contends.

“I still had the same regulations and responsibilities as everyone else such as but not limited to: 6 a.m. workouts, all practices, weight sessions, academic standards, team and position meetings, summer training, games, 12 month a year participation, etc,” McKenzie wrote.

As part of his objection, dated Wednesday, McKenzie asked to speak at the April approval hearing. At the hearing, where Wilken’s task is to gauge whether the settlement meets the standard of “fair, reasonable and adequate,” she can approve the deal as is, ask for revisions or reject it and move the case — which is now a collection of related cases — toward trial.

The objections are not a legal action taken toward the University of Missouri.