For last fifty-nine months, it was a legal tug of war—filled with twists, powerful voices, and a shifting understanding of fairness in college sports. At the heart of it all: House v. NCAA, a trio of federal antitrust lawsuits accusing the NCAA of unlawfully capping what athletes could earn. Then came a rare moment on April 7. Olivia Dunne—one of the highest-profile faces of college athletics—appeared virtually during the settlement hearing to make her voice heard. Her frustration wasn’t about whether athletes should be paid retroactively. It was about how.“This settlement doesn’t come close to recognizing the value I lost,” Dunne said. She argued that the math behind the deal severely underestimated her true earning potential. Like many elite female athletes, she felt the damage pool had been sliced unfairly—and that once again, those at the top of the women’s game were being undervalued. Behind Dunne’s sharp words was a deeper truth: even in a victory, some still feel left behind.But on Friday night, June 6, came a ruling that sent shockwaves through the sports world. Judge Claudia Wilken handed down a landmark judgment: the NCAA must pay nearly $2.8 billion in back damages over the next decade to athletes who competed from 2016 to the present. And the future? It’s rewritten. Starting in the 2025–26 season, each school will be allowed to pay its athletes—on top of scholarships and other benefits—up to a projected annual cap of $20.5 million, a figure that will rise over time. Still, for former stars like Dunne, a question lingers in the shadows: What happens to those who feel shortchanged?Mar 22, 2025; Wichita, KS, USA; A general view of a March Madness logo at center court before the game between the Texas Tech Red Raiders and the Drake Bulldogs at Intrust Bank Arena. Mandatory Credit: Nick Tre. Smith-Imagn ImagesThe report is developing…The post Olivia Dunne and Co.’s Fight in $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement Ends With Questions Still Unanswered appeared first on EssentiallySports.