In a watershed moment in college sports, U.S. Federal Judge Claudia Wilkin has granted final approval of the settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust litigation, opening the door for schools to pay student-athletes directly, beginning July 1. The initial House v. NCAA case – brought by two student-athletes – was filed in June 2020, challenging the NCAA policy at the time that prohibited student-athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights or from sharing broadcast media and other revenue. The case was later consolidated with two similar antitrust suits.
The approval of the $2.8 billion, 10-year settlement in House represents a significant shift in the world of college athletics, altering how student-athletes are compensated and how universities engage with NIL deals.
The damages back-pay portion of the settlement will largely be borne by the NCAA, Power Four conferences — ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC — and the Pac-12; each was a defendant in the antitrust case. Payments will be made to student-athletes who competed from 2016-2024 for prior use of their NIL, with most of the money expected to go to former Power conference football and men’s basketball players.
In addition to the damages settlement, the House settlement includes approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with student-athletes over the next year, with that cap amount increasing over the 10-year term of the settlement (gradually climbing to around $33 million by 2034-35). The number represents 22% of each school’s revenue from things including media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Of this revenue shared with student-athletes, football players are expected to receive 75%, followed by men’s basketball (15%), women’s basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%).
For the past several years, following the NCAA’s change of its NIL prohibitions in 2021, NIL compensation flowed through individual deals or third-party collectives, with minimal involvement from the schools themselves. The new revenue-sharing model will require all outside NIL deals to go through a clearinghouse (“NIL-Go”), which will determine whether payments represent a valid business purpose and reflect a fair market value. A new enforcement arm – the College Sports Commission (and not the NCAA)–, will oversee the process.
For the first time, schools can now play a direct role in compensating student-athletes, fundamentally reshaping the college sports landscape. The House v NCAA settlement won’t resolve all the many NIL issues college sports face. It does, however, create a blueprint for whatever the ultimate process may entail.
Key Implications of the Settlement
Direct Compensation by Schools
Under the new framework, schools are no longer passive bystanders. They are now central to the NIL conversation, creating opportunities to standardize student-athlete compensation. This also raises questions about resource disparities between larger programs and smaller schools, potentially widening the gap in competitive equity.
In addition, attorneys in the Title IX area are suggesting that schools may see a potential wave of gender-equity lawsuits from student-athletes, including challenges over how that revenue is distributed.
Antitrust Concerns
One significant challenge is whether the $20.5 annual cap on NIL compensation violates antitrust laws. This cap could artificially limit the market value of student-athletes, leading to potential future litigation. While the House settlement resolves the antitrust claims raised in the consolidated complaints, it cannot resolve claims that were not part of the litigation, a point taken by Judge Wilken in her settlement approval. In addition, the NCAA, conferences, and schools continue to seek antitrust exemptions from congress to protect college sports from another series of lawsuits. Nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill yet.
Roster Limits
The House v NCAA settlement calls for roster limits that will ultimately reduce the number of players on sports teams, while making all those players eligible for full scholarships. This could have substantial consequences for Olympic sport student-athletes and other student-athlete participants in non-revenue generating sports. Those scholarships cost as much as that of a football player. The settlement may also lead to a decrease in walk-on opportunities as teams carefully fill their roster slots.
Outstanding Opt-Out Cases
The settlement does not resolve all similar disputes. Opt-out cases remain pending, and their outcomes could further influence how schools and athletes navigate NIL compensation agreements. For example, Fontenot v. NCAA, which was first filed in Colorado federal court in 2023, remains ongoing. It goes much further than the claims brought in House v. NCAA. Plaintiffs argue that the NCAA and Power conferences have illegally restricted all forms of athlete compensation beyond NIL deals, and that plaintiffs deserve damages for more than just lost NIL rights.
Employee Status and Collective Bargaining
As schools become more involved in paying student-athletes, the question of whether student-athletes qualify as employees looms larger. The Johnson v. NCAA case was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have student-athletes classified as employees. If student-athletes gain employee status, they could pursue collective bargaining rights, fundamentally changing the power dynamic between athletes, schools, and governing bodies like the NCAA.
What’s Next?
While the House v NCAA settlement is a step forward, the road ahead is far from clear. Schools, athletes, and governing bodies will need to adapt quickly to this evolving landscape, addressing unresolved issues around fairness, legal compliance, and the sustainability of NIL models.
As this new era of college athletics unfolds, this settlement is not the end of the conversation but the beginning of a transformative chapter. The decisions made in the coming months and years will define the future of collegiate sports and the opportunities available to student-athletes.
Greenspoon Marder’s Entertainment and Sports practice group excels in guiding NIL collectives and athletes through diverse legal challenges. For further questions or guidance, contact [email protected].
House v. NCAA