CLEMSON — Prior to the South Carolina game a few weeks back, Dabo Swinney was asked about his comments from a 2014 press conference, in which Swinney allegedly said he would quit coaching if college athletes were paid.

“I did not say that…,” Clemson’s head coach said. “I do not want to be a part of the professionalization of college athletics.”

Here is what Swinney said from a 2014 press conference after he was asked about student-athletes unionizing.

“As far as paying players, professionalizing college athletics, that’s where you lose me,” he said. “I’ll go do something else, because there’s enough entitlement in this world as it is. To say these guys get nothing totally devalues an education. It just blows my mind people don’t even want to quantify an education.”

If Grant House, Sedona Prince and Nya Harrison have their way, Swinney might have to revisit his 2014 statement.

On Dec. 2, the three former NCAA athletes issued their request in a letter to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who is overseeing the NCAA vs. the House settlement. House, Prince and Harrison are plaintiffs in the antitrust cases included in the settlement.

In a report from ABC News on Tuesday, the three former athletes are calling for major structural changes beyond those established in the pending settlement, including enabling college athletes to bargain collectively through an independent players’ association.

In other words, unionizing it would establish the professionalism for college athletes, which Swinney has always been against.

The current model, which allows players to be paid for their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL), Swinney has been in favor of. He also favors the $2.8 billion settlement that will allow schools to directly pay their student-athletes, which likely will start next summer.

Under the terms of the 10-year deal, each school would be able to allocate more than $20 million per year for athletes’ compensation, with a gradual increase each year.

Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval in September to a settlement. A hearing for final approval is scheduled to take place in April.

In the letter, the three plaintiffs warned that player representation in future revenue negotiations is needed, or athletes will remain in a vulnerable position, which could lead to more litigation. They asked the court to give formal support to athletes’ efforts to collectively negotiate through a players’ association.

“We need a players’ association,” the players wrote.

Some think the letter will not derail the process of getting the settlement complete. However, if the settlement is approved, the NCAA might not get the resolution it is hoping for and could find themselves back in court.

House, Prince and Harrison acknowledged in their letter that the settlement is a significant step forward, however, their goal is to professionalize collegiate athletics.

“While professional leagues include athletes in these decisions through their respective players associations, the college system continues to prevent our players association from representing us at the decision-making tables,” they wrote.

Student-athletes have until January to agree to the settlement or opt out of it.