The $82.5 Million Cheer Settlement Is Paying Out — and the Average Check Is Nearly $8,200

A mother is opening a check for more than eight thousand dollars somewhere in a suburban Tennessee gym. She bought uniform after uniform, drove her daughter to weekend competitions across the nation for years, and paid camp registration fees that never seemed to go down no matter how many seasons went by. She most likely thought the costs were the same as those of competitive cheerleading. A federal court in the Western District of Tennessee found that Varsity Brands chose to charge the prices because it had the freedom to do so for years.

Cheerleading families in 35 states have started receiving payments from the Cheer Settlement Fund, which is officially the $82.5 million settlement of Jones et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al. The court approved a final disbursement in February 2026, and checks will be sent out by late March. Even those who keep a close eye on these cases were taken aback by the $8,181.66 average payment per plaintiff, which is significantly more than most class action settlements. In order to reflect the various categories of alleged overcharging across Varsity’s extensive business, the settlement fund was split into three pools: 53 percent for payments related to competition, 26 percent for camp fees, and 21 percent for apparel.

The case itself, which was filed in 2020 and litigated for almost three and a half years, focused on a fairly specific antitrust argument: that Varsity Brands, which is by far the biggest manufacturer of competitive cheer events in the US and the biggest seller of cheer uniforms and equipment, had systematically established a monopoly over the competitive cheer market through acquisitions, exclusive dealing agreements, and collaboration with the U.S. All Star Federation. It was argued that Varsity used its position of dominance to set prices that would never have been sustained in a truly competitive market. Inflated admission fees were paid by families. They paid exorbitant prices for clothing. Additionally, they were frequently obliged to make hotel reservations at Varsity-approved establishments in order to compete in specific events through Varsity’s “Stay to Play” program, which added another level of captive pricing to an already costly activity.

The private equity firms Charlesbank Capital Partners and Bain Capital, as well as USASF and its founder Jeff Webb, were among the defendants in addition to Varsity’s operating entities. It’s worth stopping to look at that list of defendants. You’re looking at a story that goes far beyond the gym floor when you see Bain Capital mentioned in a cheerleading antitrust case. The Varsity case is one of the most concrete examples of what can happen when a company supported by sophisticated financial operators achieves near-total control of a youth activity that families feel they have no choice but to participate in. Private equity ownership of youth sports infrastructure is a growing and understudied phenomenon. When your child has dedicated years of work to a team, the expenses don’t seem optional. Over years of arduous litigation, the Saveri Law Firm successfully argued that this type of market power functions very differently from, say, expensive electronics.

Reading the court’s language regarding the final approval makes it difficult to avoid feeling somewhat satisfied. In December 2024, the judge who gave final approval observed that the case required “courage and strength of character,” characterizing the class representatives’ commitment as an example for others. The bench’s use of such language is unusual enough to be noticeable. The families who signed this lawsuit were aware that Varsity was a strong, well-funded organization with knowledgeable legal counsel. They persisted for three and a half years, and as a result, $82.5 million was returned to the parents who, the court found, were routinely overcharged for their kids’ involvement in a sport.

In the end, behavioral changes brought about by the settlement might be more significant than the monetary sum. Varsity is banned from requiring athletes to attend a camp in order to compete in its national championship events for the next five years. This practice essentially forced families to buy camp packages that they may not have desired. Additionally, Varsity can no longer mandate that participants in more than 35% of its competitions stay at Varsity-approved lodging, and exclusive purchasing agreements as a condition of discount programs are no longer an option. The cheer community will have to keep an eye on whether those restrictions are strictly enforced or subtly loosen as the five-year period goes on.

The deadline for new claims was reached in May 2025, and the distribution process is now in progress. The amount of checks given to the families depends on how much they spent on qualifying purchases between December 2016 and March 2024. According to reports, some families who continued to be heavily involved in competitive cheerleading throughout those years—paying fees for several children and seasons—are getting payouts that are significantly higher than the average. The families who were most severely overcharged stand to gain the most from that calculation, which has a subtle justice to it.
In America, youth sports are a huge source of income, frequently based on the participation fees paid by families who just want their kids to participate. The Varsity Brands settlement represents a unique instance in which one of those industries’ financial architecture was thoroughly scrutinized, determined to be deficient, and held responsible.