More than a dozen objections have been filed against the $2.8 billion settlement of antitrust allegations against the NCAA and the nation’s biggest conferences — concerns ranging from roster limits and Title IX to what some call an unfair salary cap — but attorneys say they don’t see any threats to pushing the industry-changing lawsuit through this year.

The deadline arrived Friday to submit objections to the so-called House settlement, which calls for former athletes to receive millions in back pay and also gives schools the option to distribute up to $20.5 million a year in payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL).

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will have at least 14 objections to review — ranging from letters from soccer players to legal briefs picking apart the entire settlement — before the April 7 hearing she set to consider final approval of the settlement. The schools want to clear the way for the deal to take effect starting with the next academic year.

Some of the key topics related to the settlement:

Salary cap>> The Justice Department in the final days of the Biden Administration joined lawyers and athletes in arguing the $20.5 million — which represents 22% of TV and other revenue at the biggest schools — amounts to an unfair salary cap.

One of the legal briefs objecting to the settlement called the figure “totally arbitrary.” It also argued that setting limits on what athletes can make violates the very antitrust concerns the settlement was designed to address.

Title IX>> How schools navigate Title IX requirements under a system in which players can make money is not an issue unique to the settlement. The statute is intended to ensure gender equity in education including athletics.

Last-minute guidance from the Biden administration’s Education Department suggested that NIL payments from schools should be treated the same as educational benefits — a caveat that could put schools in violation of the law if they pay most of their NIL money to male athletes.