College athletes took a big step Monday closer to a future in which they can be paid directly by their schools.

Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval Monday morning to the terms of an industry-changing antitrust settlement, accepting a series of changes made by attorneys representing all athletes in Division I, the NCAA and its Power Five conferences.

Wilken initially expressed concerns that some elements of the settlement would restrict future payments to players and would not meet legal requirements. However, she wrote in her ruling this week that the court “is likely to approve the settlement as fair, reasonable and reasonable.”

Wilken’s order also set a timeline for the remaining steps to complete the deal. All athletes affected by the settlement have until January 31 to file an appeal or opt out. A final hearing to approve the deal is scheduled for April 7, 2025 – coincidentally the same day as the men’s basketball championship game.

In May, attorneys for all parties agreed to settle three antitrust lawsuits (House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA) that alleged that the association’s rules illegally restricted the earning potential of college athletes. The NCAA agreed to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to former and current college athletes.

The deal also eliminates restrictions requiring schools to pay their players directly, long a cornerstone of the NCAA’s amateur rules. If the deal is finalized, schools will be allowed to pay their players up to a certain limit starting next year. The cap is expected to start at just over $20 million per school and increase annually.

“We are pleased to be one step closer to a revolutionary change in college sports that will allow NCAA athletes to share in billions of dollars in revenue,” said Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs’ group.

Berman and co-plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler will begin providing more information about the details of the settlement to athletes at all Division I schools later this month. By December, all athletes who have competed in a Division I sport since 2016 can receive an estimate of how much they could receive from the damages pool.

NCAA President Charlie Baker previously said the agreement was an important step toward transforming college sports’ economic model so athletes could be paid without being considered employees. Baker said this summer that the NCAA would still need help from Congress to stop several pending legal challenges that claim college athletes should be considered employees of their schools.

“We are pleased with Judge Wilken’s decision to grant preliminary approval to the groundbreaking settlement that will help bring stability and sustainability to collegiate athletics while providing greater benefits to student-athletes for years to come,” said Baker in a statement on Monday.

“Today’s progress is a significant step in writing the next chapter for the future of college sports. We look forward to working with all of Division I, and particularly student-athlete leadership groups, to chart the path forward and drive historic change.”

Wilken gave preliminary approval to the terms of the agreement despite objections to whether the settlement appropriately apportioned damages. The plaintiffs estimate that about 90% of the $2.8 billion will go to football and basketball players, since broadcast rights for those sports account for the vast majority of college sports revenue.

Several groups told the judge that they believe such an allocation would be unfair to female athletes and could violate federal Title IX law. As part of the settlement, the athletes would have to agree to waive their right to file Title IX lawsuits over the payment of damages.

Other objectors also raised concerns about a portion of the agreement that would allow the NCAA to set limits on a defined group of third-party providers and the name, image and likeness agreements they can enter into with college athletes. The restrictions are intended to stop the current system of NIL-based collectives that use endorsement deals to attract and retain players for a particular team.

Removing collectives would place a stricter cap on the funds each team can spend on building its roster.

Wilken said during a preliminary approval hearing in early September that she believes restricting collectives could be considered an illegal restriction. She also noted that it is difficult to define which third-party groups the NCAA could restrict. At the end of September, the plaintiffs’ lawyers submitted new language that more narrowly defined the controversial term.

The settlement is likely to face further scrutiny from those who have already objected to some of the restrictions, including at least one group of athletes who filed a separate antitrust lawsuit last November.