Since its founding in 1906, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States, now known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA has been under an almost continuous attack for its illegal collusion to prohibit student-athletes from receiving compensation of any kind beyond scholarships and limited stipends. This amateur only model was finally demolished with the formal settlement of Grant House and Sedona Prince v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Pac-12 Conference, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., The Big Twelve Conference, Inc., Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference known asHouse v. NCAA, a seminal class-action antitrust lawsuit, building on numerous other assaults which have shaped college sports too.
Filed in 2020 by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and other athletes, the lawsuit challenged the NCAA's restrictions on athletes profiting from their Name, Image and Likeness or NIL, prior to 2021. The plaintiffs argued that these restrictions violated federal antitrust laws by suppressing the market for athlete endorsements and other commercial opportunities1.
The NCAA and the Power Five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) agreed to a settlement in June 2025 that includes the following major components:
- The NCAA will pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who competed in Division I sports between 2016 and 2024, the majority of which go to football and men's basketball.
- Schools can share up to 22% of their qualifying athletics
revenue with student-athletes, beginning July 1, 2025:
- Including revenue from media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships.
- The initial cap is $20.5 million per school, with annual increases expected.
- The College Sports Commission has been created to oversee the settlement and enforce NIL and revenue sharing rules.
- NIL GO – a new oversight review system, managed by Deloitte, will evaluate NIL deals over $600 to ensure market value and legitimate business purpose.
- Roster caps, instead of scholarship limits, will be
implemented, allowing schools more flexibility over
scholarships.
Implications
The controversial settlement was reached between the litigants, without input or consent from a number of important stakeholders, leading to a variety of implications, many of which have not even been considered yet.
For student-athletes in revenue producing sports like football and men's basketball, and to a lesser extent, women's basketball, this may be a welcome development as the money spigot apparently has been opened. NIL revenue and revenue sharing could lead to yearly incomes approaching professional salaries for some Power Five athletes, but some have already benefited from large NIL deals. The complexity of vetting and negotiating (and living up to expectations of) these new deals has only just begun. And many of these individuals will need teams of advisors and lawyers and at an even earlier age than anticipated2. Generally, those in non-revenue sports and some female athletes, may continue to be disadvantaged, although individual schools may try and limit disparate treatment, which may be a source of new and ongoing litigation.
Athletic departments will now need to determine how these new rules impact their Title IX obligations to their female athletes. They will also need to ascertain how to allocate this 22% revenue cap amongst their various varsity sports. Schools with larger budgets will increasing become more competitive attracting students and in achieving championships, with the smaller schools continuing to regress. Will this result in lower television ratings as the Power Five schools will continue to dominate? Only time will tell. Olympic, other non-revenue generating, and some female dominated programs may also suffer as departments may be forced to funnel money to programs that are net economically positive. The long-term viability of some sports at some schools, some institutions themselves and the United States international dominance in some sports may itself be at stake.
NILs and the college collectives may be the most impacted after the athletes as these deals will be scrutinized now by NIL GO, the new regulator, which has just begun to provide details. https://www.collegesportscommission.org/nil. The review portal has recent been opened so it's unclear precisely the new review criteria. Further, sponsors and the deals and promotions they offer athletes, teams and schools will need to evolve as the landscape is impacted by these new rules, regulations and interpretations, while assuring them of the sponsor's goals consistent with those of NIL GO.
This settlement recognizes the primacy of the "Super League" of the SEC and BIG Ten's role, surpassing the Power Five conferences, in determining how much of the revenue is generated for these schools and hence, the athletes through long term television rights deals. All of the conferences will take an increasing role in regulating compensation and compliance too, potentially creating disparate rules across the country. And this settlement is yet further acknowledgement of termination of the NCAA's role as an effective regulator of college sports.
Many have called for a truly new, negotiated national solution to meet the various needs of money, sports, athletes, competition, transparency and television. The current administration and Congress have thus far been unable or unwilling to forge any sort of comprehensive solution forged through a true collaboration with the conferences and the Super League. Those with interests in the current or newly enacted system seem to be willing to permit modest or incremental change at best. However, calls for a "Saban Commission" or "Luck Commission" will only increase as the players gain increased experience and leverage with this new regime.
Antitrust law has proven to be an effective tool, perhaps the only effective tool, governing college sports. Whatever defenses these schools have proffered, like amateurism, has weakened beyond recognition. But will antirust law's dominance continue after this settlement, particularly during the current administration and its view of monopoly, competition and employer power. Further lawsuits continue to drive the debate, which seems like an ineffective and inexact scalpel to exercise such a large and complicated political and economic problem. The settlement failed to address the employee/employer issue which continues to vex universities and their athletes, which will probably only be determined by concrete legislative action, for which there seems to be no current consensus.
Conclusion
Perhaps this settlement is simply yet another marker in history, a final recognition of the power of the individual athlete who attends college and her or his ability to create and capture their fair share (or some measure) of their value in the entire revenue stream. The House v. NCAA settlement is a historic turning point in the evolution of college athletics. By dismantling the NCAA's amateurism model and introducing direct revenue sharing, the case redefines the relationship between athletes, schools, and the broader sports economy. While this settlement may have resolved certain specific issues, a number of important concerns remain. Does amateur sports still exist on the college campus? And if so, what does it now mean to be a "college-athlete"? It cannot mean the same thing across all sports and across all Divisions. What is the fan or alumni's relationship to its school? And how has it now changed? Are these people simply spigots of cash to assist in supporting the giant money-making machine? Do fans or alumni "care" about the institution in quite the same way they did before this all-consuming pursuit of money? Or is this just another arms race? Will it harm fundraising for the institution's other missions, like education and research? What happens in the courts will echo on Saturday morning, on fields, on courts, and in stadiums, in ways we have yet to consider.
Footnotes
1. This lawsuit would not have been successful without
the prior cases of O'Bannon v. NCAA (2014), which used
antitrust laws to benefit student athletes and NCAA v
Alston (2021) where the US Supreme court unanimously ruled
that the NCAA's rules limiting education-related benefits for
student-athletes violated antitrust laws.
2. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39539772/usa-youth-soccer-whitham-youngest-athlete-sign-nike-nil-deal[2]
Originally published by Sports Litigation Alert.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
