A $4.6 million antitrust settlement between professional swimmers and World Aquatics hit a courtroom snag in February 2025 when U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley sharply questioned the attorney fees arrangement. The judge took issue with plaintiffs’ counsel seeking roughly $1.15 million from the settlement fund — 25 percent of the total — while also collecting a separate $3 million payment from World Aquatics itself, for which the court had received no documentation justifying the amount. The exchange between Judge Corley and lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn LLP was described as “heated.” The underlying case, *Shields et al.
V. Fédération Internationale de Natation*, dates back to December 2018 and centers on allegations that the governing body of international swimming organized a group boycott against the upstart International Swimming League. Named plaintiffs Tom Shields, Michael Andrew, and Hungarian swimmer Katinka Hosszú argued that World Aquatics threatened bans and penalties against professional swimmers who competed in ISL events, effectively cutting them off from appearance fees and prize money. The settlement was still pending final approval as of the February 2025 hearing.
Table of Contents
- Why Did a Judge Question Attorney Fees in the $4.6M Swimming Antitrust Settlement?
- Who Qualifies for the Three Settlement Classes?
- The Antitrust Case Against World Aquatics and the ISL Boycott
- What Eligible Swimmers Should Know About Filing a Claim
- The Attorney Fees Problem in Class Action Settlements
- The $1 Verdict in the ISL Entity Lawsuit
- What This Settlement Means for Athlete Rights Going Forward
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Did a Judge Question Attorney Fees in the $4.6M Swimming Antitrust Settlement?
The fees dispute boiled down to transparency — or the lack of it. Jeffrey Kessler’s legal team requested approximately $1.15 million from the $4.6 million settlement fund, representing the standard 25 percent cut that courts commonly approve in class action cases. On its own, that figure would not have raised many eyebrows. What drew Judge Corley’s scrutiny was the additional $3 million that World Aquatics separately agreed to pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers for work described as expanding competitive opportunities for swimmers. The judge demanded documentation justifying that amount and made clear she had not received any. Judge Corley also pressed Kessler on why his team had not assigned a specific dollar value to one of the three settlement classes.
In class action settlements, courts typically want to see how funds are allocated across different groups of claimants so they can evaluate whether the deal is fair. Without that breakdown, the judge could not properly assess whether the overall arrangement — including the attorney fee structure — served the interests of the swimmers it was supposed to help. The fact that the exchange turned heated suggests this was not a minor procedural hiccup but a genuine judicial concern about the fee arrangement’s structure. For comparison, attorney fees in class action settlements generally range from 20 to 33 percent of the fund, depending on case complexity and jurisdiction. The 25 percent request from the fund itself fell within normal bounds. But when you add the separate $3 million payment, total attorney compensation would reach roughly $4.15 million — nearly equal to the entire settlement fund meant for the swimmers themselves.
Who Qualifies for the Three Settlement Classes?
The settlement created three distinct classes, each covering a different group of professional swimmers affected by World Aquatics’ alleged boycott. The first is the 2018 Damages Class, which includes swimmers who signed contracts for the canceled ISL “Energy for Swim 2018” event that was scheduled to take place in Turin, Italy. These athletes had concrete financial agreements in place and lost specific, quantifiable income when the event was scrapped. The second group is the 2019 Damages Class, covering swimmers who held contracts for the 2019 ISL season. This was the league’s inaugural competitive season, and swimmers who had committed to participate but faced interference from World Aquatics fall into this category.
The third and broadest group is the Injunctive Relief Class, which encompasses top-tier professional swimmers who signed ISL contracts at any point from January 1, 2018 through August 29, 2025. However, being in the Injunctive Relief Class does not necessarily mean a swimmer will receive the same type of compensation as those in the two damages classes. Injunctive relief typically involves changes to behavior or policy rather than direct monetary payouts. Swimmers who competed in ISL events during the early years — when World Aquatics’ alleged threats were most active — likely have stronger claims to financial damages than those who joined later, after the competitive landscape had already shifted. The lack of a specific dollar allocation per class, which Judge Corley flagged, makes it difficult to assess exactly how much any individual swimmer might receive.
The Antitrust Case Against World Aquatics and the ISL Boycott
The core allegation in this case reads like a textbook federal antitrust violation. World Aquatics, then known as FINA, allegedly organized a coordinated group boycott to strangle the International Swimming League before it could establish itself as a viable competitor. The ISL was founded to give elite swimmers something that did not exist in their sport: a professional league with appearance fees, prize money, and a team-based competitive format. World Aquatics, which had long held a monopoly over international swimming competitions, allegedly responded by threatening swimmers with bans and penalties if they participated. Tom Shields, a U.S.
Olympic swimmer, and Michael Andrew, one of America’s most prominent breaststroke and individual medley specialists, put their names on the lawsuit alongside Katinka Hosszú, the Hungarian swimmer widely known as the “Iron Lady” for her prolific competition schedule. Their willingness to serve as named plaintiffs carried weight — these were not anonymous claimants but recognizable athletes publicly challenging their sport’s global governing body. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a jurisdiction with significant experience handling antitrust matters. The ISL launched its 2019 season despite the alleged interference, but the league struggled financially and eventually ceased operations. The separate lawsuit brought by the ISL entity itself against World Aquatics went to trial, and while the jury found in favor of the ISL, it awarded just $1 in damages — a verdict that underscored the difficulty of proving concrete financial harm even when anticompetitive conduct is established.
What Eligible Swimmers Should Know About Filing a Claim
For swimmers who believe they fall into one of the three settlement classes, the practical question is what happens next — assuming the settlement receives final judicial approval. The February 2025 hearing made clear that approval was not yet granted, and Judge Corley’s pointed questions about attorney fees suggest the court may require modifications to the fee arrangement before signing off. Swimmers who signed ISL contracts during the relevant period should preserve any documentation of those agreements, including contracts, emails, and correspondence related to ISL events or World Aquatics communications.
The 2018 Damages Class and 2019 Damages Class members stand to receive direct monetary compensation, but the per-swimmer amount depends heavily on how many eligible claimants file and how the $4.6 million is divided. If 100 swimmers file valid claims across both damages classes, the math works out differently than if 50 do — especially once attorney fees and administrative costs are deducted. The tradeoff for class members is the familiar one in class action settlements: accepting a guaranteed payout from the settlement versus the uncertainty and expense of individual litigation. Given that the related ISL entity lawsuit resulted in a $1 jury verdict despite a finding of liability, the settlement route offers a more concrete path to compensation, even if the individual amounts may be modest relative to the earnings swimmers lost.
The Attorney Fees Problem in Class Action Settlements
Judge Corley’s pushback on the fee arrangement in this case highlights a recurring tension in class action litigation. Attorneys take on significant risk by pursuing these cases on contingency, often investing years of work before seeing any return. At the same time, the clients they represent — in this case, professional swimmers — depend on the court to ensure that lawyer compensation does not consume a disproportionate share of the recovery. The unusual structure here, where counsel receives both a percentage of the settlement fund and a separate multimillion-dollar payment from the defendant, is not unheard of but does raise legitimate questions.
The $3 million payment from World Aquatics was characterized as compensation for work related to expanding competitive opportunities for swimmers, but without documentation, the court had no way to evaluate whether that amount was reasonable or whether it effectively functioned as additional attorney fees disguised under a different label. Judge Corley’s demand for detailed descriptions of litigation costs — down to hotel rooms and travel expenses — signals that she intended to scrutinize the entire fee picture before approving the deal. This matters because swimmers in the settlement classes cannot negotiate their own fee arrangements with class counsel. The court acts as their proxy, and when a judge asks hard questions about fees, that is the system working as intended. Swimmers watching this case should understand that judicial skepticism about fees is not a threat to the settlement itself — it is a safeguard designed to maximize the share that actually reaches class members.
The $1 Verdict in the ISL Entity Lawsuit
One of the more striking footnotes in this saga is the parallel lawsuit brought by the ISL as a corporate entity against World Aquatics. That case went to a full jury trial, and while the jury agreed that World Aquatics had engaged in anticompetitive conduct — a significant factual finding — it awarded just $1 in damages. The verdict illustrated a common challenge in antitrust litigation: proving that specific conduct caused specific, quantifiable financial harm.
The ISL’s financial difficulties had multiple causes, including the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on live sporting events and the league’s own business model challenges. World Aquatics could plausibly argue that the ISL would have struggled regardless of any boycott threats. For the individual swimmers in the class action, however, the harm was more concrete — lost appearance fees and prize money from specific events they had contracted to participate in, which is likely why the $4.6 million settlement was reachable even after the $1 verdict in the entity case.
What This Settlement Means for Athlete Rights Going Forward
Regardless of how the fee dispute resolves, the existence of this settlement represents a meaningful development for professional swimmers and athletes in individual sports more broadly. World Aquatics agreeing to pay $4.6 million — plus potentially $3 million in additional attorney fees — amounts to an acknowledgment that threatening athletes for competing in rival leagues carries real legal consequences. The injunctive relief component, which extends through August 2025, is arguably more significant than the monetary relief because it establishes boundaries on how governing bodies can restrict athlete participation.
The case also fits into a broader pattern of athletes challenging the monopoly power of international sports federations. Track and field athletes, tennis players, and golfers have all navigated similar tensions between traditional governing bodies and breakaway competitions. The swimming antitrust case, while smaller in dollar terms than some of these disputes, adds to the legal precedent that federations cannot simply threaten their way out of competition. Whether the settlement receives final approval — and how much of the $4.6 million actually reaches swimmers after fees and costs — remains to be seen.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is eligible for the $4.6 million swimming antitrust settlement?
There are three classes. The 2018 Damages Class covers swimmers who signed contracts for the canceled ISL Energy for Swim 2018 event in Turin. The 2019 Damages Class covers swimmers with contracts for the 2019 ISL season. The Injunctive Relief Class includes top-tier professional swimmers who signed ISL contracts from January 1, 2018 through August 29, 2025.
Has the settlement been approved by the court?
As of the February 2025 hearing, the settlement was still pending final approval. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley raised concerns about the attorney fee structure that may need to be resolved before the court signs off.
How much will each swimmer receive from the settlement?
The per-swimmer amount has not been publicly disclosed and will depend on how many eligible claimants file, how the fund is allocated across the three classes, and how much is deducted for attorney fees and administrative costs. The total fund is $4.6 million.
What was the attorney fees dispute about?
Plaintiffs’ counsel sought about $1.15 million (25% of the fund) plus a separate $3 million payment from World Aquatics. Judge Corley questioned the lack of documentation justifying the $3 million and demanded detailed cost breakdowns.
What happened in the separate ISL lawsuit against World Aquatics?
A jury found in favor of the ISL, agreeing that World Aquatics engaged in anticompetitive conduct, but awarded only $1 in damages — reflecting the difficulty of proving specific financial harm caused by the boycott.
What is World Aquatics and why was it sued?
World Aquatics, formerly known as FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation), is the international governing body for swimming. It was sued for allegedly organizing a group boycott against the International Swimming League and threatening to ban or penalize swimmers who competed in ISL events.