qtq80-yQ2zMe

A New Era in College Sports: Navigating the Legal Landscape After the House v. NCAA Settlement

06/09/2025 | The Mundaca Law Firm |

The recent approval of the House v. NCAA settlement by a federal judge marks a monumental turning point in college sports, effectively ending the long-standing tradition of “amateurism” that has defined collegiate athletics for over a century.1 This decision, long anticipated, paves the way for a new landscape where colleges and universities can directly compensate their athletes for the first time.1 While direct payments are often the headline, the settlement’s implications extend far beyond financial transactions. It fundamentally reshapes the legal framework governing college sports, raising critical questions about employment law, collective bargaining, and the enduring principles of Title IX.6 This is not merely an evolution; it is a forced revolution driven by years of persistent legal challenges.

The NCAA’s “amateurism” model, a legal strategy created in the 1950s to protect colleges from liability and workers’ compensation claims, has been under increasing scrutiny for decades.14 Landmark antitrust rulings like O’Bannon v. NCAA 3 and NCAA v. Alston 9 systematically dismantled the NCAA’s argument that its restrictions on athlete compensation were necessary to preserve amateurism. The Alston decision, in particular, explicitly stated there is “no amateurism exception” to antitrust law.23 The House settlement, by introducing direct payments, is a direct consequence of this sustained legal pressure. The NCAA and Power Five conferences faced the prospect of “tens of billions of dollars” 26 or even $20 billion 13 in treble damages if the antitrust cases had gone to trial and they lost. Therefore, the settlement is not a voluntary shift but a strategic capitulation, signaling that the legal system has definitively rejected the NCAA’s long-held amateur ideal in its commercialized form. This has profound implications for how college sports are viewed legally, moving from an “extracurricular activity” 25 to a “lucrative entertainment machine”.4

The House v. NCAA Settlement: What’s Changing?

The House v. NCAA settlement introduces a new financial reality for college athletics, fundamentally altering how athletes are compensated for their contributions.

Direct Payments & Back Damages: A New Financial Reality

A significant component of the settlement is the provision for back damages to former college athletes. This amounts to approximately $2.776 billion 27, though other sources cite figures ranging from $2.75 billion to $2.8 billion.1 This substantial sum is to be paid over a 10-year period 3 to former college athletes who were previously barred from earning money from their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights.1 The NCAA is responsible for 40% of this amount, with the remaining 60% coming from reductions in revenue distributions to institutions, primarily the Power Five conferences.8 A significant portion, estimated at 75% 27 to 95% 21, is expected to go to men’s football and basketball players.1 This distribution reflects the revenue-generating power of these sports within the collegiate system.

Looking forward, direct payments to current athletes are set to begin on July 1, 2025.4 Division I schools will be able to pay athletes directly, with an initial annual cap of approximately $20.5 million per school.1 This cap is projected to increase annually, potentially reaching $33 million by 2035.1 This amount represents about 22% of the average Power Four conference athletic department revenue from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.13 While schools have discretion on how to distribute these funds, football is expected to receive the largest share (75%), followed by men’s basketball (15%), women’s basketball (5%), and other sports (5%).27

The settlement’s financial structure reflects a strategic approach to liability management. The NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to pay nearly $2.8 billion in back damages 8 over 10 years 27 to avoid facing potentially “tens of billions of dollars” 26 or even $20 billion 13 in treble damages if the antitrust cases had gone to trial and they lost. This indicates that the settlement, while historic, is primarily a risk mitigation strategy to prevent catastrophic financial liability and potential bankruptcy.13 The allocation of 60% of back damages from conference distributions 27 also demonstrates a strategic shifting of financial burden within the collegiate sports ecosystem, suggesting a collective effort to absorb the costs and maintain the overall enterprise, albeit with significant internal reallocations.

However, the $20.5 million annual cap for direct payments 1 represents a significant step, but legal experts and even the Department of Justice have already called it an “artificial cap” that does not reflect “free market value”.12 This artificial limitation on compensation, especially for high-revenue sports where athletes generate far more value 16, is inherently anti-competitive.12 The fact that the settlement does not grant the NCAA antitrust immunity 12 means this cap is highly susceptible to future legal challenges. This creates a paradoxical outcome: a settlement designed to resolve antitrust issues simultaneously introduces new antitrust vulnerabilities, ensuring a continued cycle of litigation.

New Regulatory Bodies: Shifting Power and Enforcement

In the wake of the settlement, a significant shift in regulatory power and enforcement mechanisms is underway. The Power Four conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC) will establish a new entity, the College Sports Commission (CSC), to assume responsibility for regulating and enforcing player compensation issues.27 This new body is expected to hire a CEO, with Bryan Seeley already announced for the role.27 The CSC will be responsible for enforcing the salary cap and policing attempts to circumvent it.38 Reports indicate that Power conference schools are circulating contracts requiring institutions to waive their right to sue the CSC, with threats of expulsion for non-compliance.27 The NCAA, meanwhile, will shift its focus to traditional areas like eligibility and academics.38

The creation of the CSC by the Power Four conferences 38 and its assumption of direct payment and NIL enforcement 38 signifies a fundamental shift in governance. The NCAA, having been described as “toothless in NIL enforcement” 46 and plagued by “inconsistency and slow enforcement processes” 42, is effectively ceding control over the most financially impactful aspects of college sports. This move represents a strategic consolidation of power by the most influential conferences 47 to regain control and create a more “controlled environment” 47 for the new revenue-sharing model, independent of the broader NCAA structure. This fragmentation of authority could lead to further complexity and potential conflicts between the CSC and the NCAA.

Accompanying the CSC is a new NIL clearinghouse, “NIL Go,” which will be run by Deloitte.2 This clearinghouse will vet third-party NIL deals of $600 or more.27 Its primary purpose is to ensure “fair market value” and a “valid business purpose” for these deals.1 Deloitte officials have indicated that a significant percentage of past deals (70% from collectives, 90% from public companies) would have been denied or approved under these new rules.27 Rejected deals can be revised, and if rejected again, will go through an arbitration process, with athletes remaining eligible during review.42

The NIL Go clearinghouse, designed to ensure “fair market value” 1, uses an algorithm and database of past deals to establish benchmarks.42 However, the very concept of “fair market value” in a system with an artificial salary cap 32 and historical suppression of athlete earnings 18 is inherently problematic. The high rejection rate for collective deals (70%) 27 suggests that many existing arrangements will be deemed “unreasonable” 44, leading to inevitable legal challenges from athletes who feel their earning potential is still being illegally limited.12 This mechanism, intended to bring stability, is likely to become another source of continuous litigation, as it attempts to impose a market-driven valuation within an anti-competitive framework.

Roster Limits & Scholarship Changes: Reshaping Team Composition

A significant structural change introduced by the settlement is the elimination of traditional scholarship limits, replacing them with new roster limits for each sport.1 This change grants schools the discretion to offer partial or full scholarships to every athlete on a team, provided they stay within the new caps.22 Proposed limits include football (105), men’s and women’s basketball (15), baseball (34), men’s and women’s soccer (28), softball (25), and volleyball (18).27

Judge Wilken initially expressed concerns about the automatic implementation of these limits, particularly regarding athletes losing roster spots.22 As a compromise, the parties agreed to phase in these limits, allowing athletes whose positions were cut to be eligible for reinstatement at the schools’ discretion and to maintain “grandfather status” if they transfer to a new school.2

The unintended consequence of these roster limits is a potential reduction in opportunities for walk-ons and non-revenue athletes. While the removal of scholarship limits theoretically allows for more athletes to receive financial aid 39, the introduction of strict roster limits 27 creates a direct trade-off. The immediate impact is a reduction in opportunities, particularly for “walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes” 2, who are explicitly identified as “losers” in the new system.2 This could lead to a significant decrease in overall athletic participation, especially in non-revenue sports 2, potentially undermining the broad-based athletic programs that many universities pride themselves on. The “grandfathering” clause 2 is a temporary mitigation, not a long-term solution, as schools still retain discretion to control their rosters.52 This suggests a future where elite athletic programs become even more exclusive, with fewer opportunities for non-scholarship athletes.

Employment Law: Are College Athletes Now Employees?

The question of whether college athletes should be classified as employees is one of the most significant and persistent legal debates stemming from the evolving landscape of collegiate sports.

The Fading Amateurism Defense: A Century of Legal Battles

For decades, the NCAA steadfastly maintained that college athletes were “student-athletes” rather than employees, a classification that exempted universities from paying wages, benefits, or recognizing union rights.1 This amateurism model, established in 1906 with the NCAA’s founding 15, was designed to protect institutions from liability.14

However, this defense has been systematically eroded by a series of landmark antitrust rulings. The 1984 NCAA v. Board of Regents case 19 challenged the NCAA’s control over football TV rights. More recently, O’Bannon v. NCAA 3 found the NCAA violated antitrust laws by preventing athletes from profiting from their NIL. This was followed by NCAA v. Alston 9, where the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law, explicitly stating there is “no ‘amateurism exception’ to antitrust law”.23 These rulings paved the way for NIL policies 9 and ultimately the House settlement.

The House settlement, by allowing direct payments and revenue sharing, undeniably pushes college athletics towards a “near professional model”.4 NCAA President Charlie Baker himself described it as a “new beginning” 7 and “a huge step forward”.1 However, a critical distinction remains: players are still not classified as employees.6 This creates a legal limbo: athletes are performing services for significant compensation, generating billions in revenue 1 akin to professional athletes, but without the legal protections and rights (e.g., minimum wage, overtime, collective bargaining) afforded to employees under federal labor laws like FLSA and NLRA. This sets up a fundamental tension between the economic reality and the legal classification, ensuring continued legal challenges.

The “Economic Realities Test” and Johnson v. NCAA: A Growing Legal Threat

In a significant development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that “student athletes” can be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).9 This means collegiate players may be entitled to minimum wage and overtime requirements for the hours spent “working” for their colleges.10

The Third Circuit applied the “common law economic realities test” 10, which considers four factors: (1) performing services for another party; (2) primarily for the other party’s benefit; (3) under that party’s control; and (4) in return for express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits.25 The court focused on the “circumstances of the whole activity”.25

This ruling creates a direct split with previous precedents from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which had held that college athletes are not FLSA employees.54 This circuit split makes it highly probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually need to resolve the question on a nationwide basis.54 The Johnson ruling also noted that the economic realities analysis might differ for “revenue” (football and men’s basketball) and “non-revenue” generating sports 10, suggesting that employee status could be sport-specific.

The Johnson v. NCAA ruling directly contradicts precedents in other circuits 54, creating a clear divergence in legal interpretation at the appellate level. This makes it almost certain that the question of college athletes’ employee status under the FLSA will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.54 A Supreme Court decision would provide a definitive, nationwide answer to this fundamental question, either solidifying their employee status or providing the NCAA with the legal protection it seeks. This means the House settlement, while addressing antitrust claims, is merely a temporary measure in the larger battle over athlete employment rights, with the ultimate legal determination still pending.

Furthermore, the Johnson ruling explicitly noted that the “economic realities test” might apply differently to “revenue” versus “non-revenue” sports.10 This suggests a scenario where football and men’s basketball players, who generate the vast majority of revenue 16, might be classified as employees, while athletes in other sports might not. This could lead to a two-tiered system of athlete classification and rights within the same university, creating significant legal and administrative complexities, including potential Title VII implications 10 and internal equity challenges. It also raises questions about the fairness of applying labor protections based on a sport’s profitability rather than the nature of the “work” performed.

The Path to Collective Bargaining: A Persistent Push

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has played a pivotal role in the debate over athlete employment. Former General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a 2021 memo asserting that certain college athletes qualify as employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).9 This stance led to unionization efforts, most notably with the Dartmouth men’s basketball team voting to unionize.13

However, the political landscape shifted with the Trump administration’s rescission of Abruzzo’s memo in February 2025.13 This action, coupled with the withdrawal of the Dartmouth petition and the dropping of an NLRB complaint against USC 58, has made the path to collective bargaining “murkier than ever”.58

Despite these setbacks, the “joint employer” concept remains a crucial legal argument. If conferences and the NCAA (both private entities) are deemed “joint employers” under the NLRA, then athletes at public universities (which are generally not subject to the NLRA) could still pursue unionization by bargaining with these private entities.61

Even with the House settlement allowing revenue sharing, it does not permit athletes to negotiate their terms, as compensation is capped at an arbitrary number.12 Athletes who led the House case have already written to Judge Wilken, advocating for a players’ association to bargain for a fair share of revenue.37 The House settlement, while providing direct payments, explicitly does not classify athletes as employees 6 and does not allow them to collectively bargain.12 This creates a vacuum that athletes are already actively trying to fill, pushing for a players’ association.37 The legal arguments for employee status (e.g., Johnson ruling, NLRB’s past stance) remain strong, even if the political winds shift.58 The “joint employer” theory 61 provides a viable legal avenue for athletes at public universities to unionize, bypassing the NLRA’s private institution limitation. This suggests that the fight for collective bargaining is not contingent on the House settlement’s success but is an independent, ongoing legal and labor movement that will continue to challenge the NCAA’s control over athlete terms and conditions.

Congressional Intervention: Seeking a Federal Solution

Recognizing its diminishing power in the courts, the NCAA and power conferences have been actively lobbying Congress for federal legislation that would explicitly prevent college athletes from being classified as employees 58 and provide a uniform rulebook for college sports.2 This includes seeking an antitrust exemption.22

Various bills have been introduced, such as the “Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act,” which aims to prohibit employee classification under federal and state labor laws.59 Senator Ted Cruz is reportedly drafting a bill that could offer limited antitrust protection.36 Despite the NCAA’s push, comprehensive federal legislation has been difficult to pass due to political divisions 59 and conflicting state laws.2 Some states, like Tennessee, have even passed laws prohibiting limits on athlete compensation unless part of federal law.65

The NCAA’s aggressive pursuit of federal legislation and an antitrust exemption 22 is a clear indication that it recognizes its diminishing power in the courts. Having lost repeatedly on antitrust grounds 12, the NCAA is now attempting to secure through legislation the legal stability and control it could not maintain judicially. This represents a strategic shift from its historical role as the primary rule-making and enforcement body to a lobbying entity seeking legislative protection. The difficulty in passing such legislation due to political divides and conflicting state laws 12 means the legal landscape will likely remain fragmented and uncertain for the foreseeable future.

Title IX: Ensuring Gender Equity in Compensation

The House v. NCAA settlement’s provisions for direct athlete payments introduce complex challenges for institutions striving to comply with Title IX, the federal anti-discrimination statute.

The Proportionality Challenge: A Direct Conflict

Title IX is a federal anti-discrimination statute that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including athletic programs.11 It mandates equitable opportunities, equitable athletic scholarships (proportional to participation rates), and equitable benefits for male and female athletes.11

The House settlement, by allowing direct payments with a clear expectation that the “lion’s share” will go to football (75%) and men’s basketball (15%) 1, creates an inherent tension with Title IX’s proportionality requirements. While schools can decide how to distribute funds 38, the economic reality is that high-revenue sports are predominantly male, leading to concerns about disproportionate benefits for male athletes.4

The House settlement’s explicit revenue-sharing model 27, which heavily favors male-dominated revenue sports (football, men’s basketball), creates a direct and undeniable conflict with Title IX’s core principle of proportionality in financial assistance.11 While the settlement itself is an antitrust case and provides no Title IX guidance 66, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has stepped in to clarify that NIL-related compensation is considered “athletic financial assistance” subject to Title IX.67 This sets the stage for a wave of Title IX lawsuits 4, as female athletes or their advocates challenge disparities in direct payments. The House settlement, by opening the door to direct pay, has inadvertently created the next major legal battleground for gender equity in college sports.

Department of Education Guidance: A Clear Warning

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance clarifying that NIL-related compensation provided by a school constitutes “athletic financial assistance” under Title IX.67 This means such compensation must be distributed proportionally between male and female student-athletes.67 This guidance is likely to apply to revenue sharing and school-sponsored NIL.68 Even third-party NIL deals (from collectives) could trigger Title IX obligations if they create gender disparities within athletic programs.67

While the Department of Education states this guidance “does not have the force and effect of law” and is “not meant to be binding” 68, it serves as a strong “suggestion to the courts” 68 and signals the federal government’s enforcement posture. Universities have acknowledged the need to reassess their distribution plans.67

Universities are now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they need to allocate significant funds to revenue-generating sports (primarily male) to remain competitive and attract top talent.1 On the other hand, the Department of Education’s guidance 67 explicitly warns that direct payments are subject to Title IX’s proportionality requirements. This creates a compliance tightrope: schools must devise “strategies to manage the dispersion of third-party NIL deals” 68 and their own revenue sharing to avoid “gender disparities” 67, which could lead to severe consequences like loss of federal funding or civil lawsuits.68 This will necessitate complex legal and financial planning, potentially leading to difficult internal resource allocation decisions and increased scrutiny of athletic department budgets.

Strategies for Compliance: Navigating the New Rules

To navigate these new complexities, universities must adopt proactive strategies. They are already reassessing their distribution plans in light of the new guidance 67 and may reconsider allocating NIL compensation based solely on revenue generation.67 Beyond direct payments, institutions must ensure equitable support services and publicity for both male and female athletes, extending to areas like media coverage and social media presence.11 Given the evolving and uncertain legal landscape, institutions are strongly advised to consult with legal counsel as part of their planning processes.68

The following table outlines key Title IX compliance considerations for direct athlete payments:

Title IX RequirementImpact of Direct PaymentsCompliance ChallengePotential Strategies
Participation OpportunitiesNew roster limits replace scholarship limits, potentially affecting overall athlete numbers.27Ensuring equitable opportunities for both sexes, especially with roster adjustments and cuts in non-revenue sports.2Monitor roster composition; ensure “grandfathering” provisions are applied fairly; reassess program offerings to maintain proportionality.
Athletic Scholarships/Financial AidDirect payments (revenue sharing, school-sponsored NIL) are now considered “athletic financial assistance”.67Ensuring proportionality of total financial assistance (including direct payments) to participation rates of male and female athletes.67Reassess compensation allocation models to achieve proportionality; avoid disproportionate allocation solely based on revenue generation.67
Other Benefits & TreatmentSchools can offer new benefits like mental health resources, nutrition support, and extended medical coverage.13Ensuring equal treatment in the provision of all benefits (e.g., facilities, coaching, medical care, publicity) for both sexes.11Implement equitable media coverage and social media presence; ensure staff assist both male and female athletes with NIL opportunities.11
Effective Accommodation of InterestsThe overall shift impacts the breadth and depth of athletic programs offered.Maintaining programs that effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.69Continuously evaluate student interest in various sports; demonstrate a history of program expansion for underrepresented sexes.
Third-Party NIL DealsWhile not direct financial aid, third-party NIL deals can create gender disparities.67Ensuring third-party payments do not result in discriminatory treatment or create overall gender disparities.67Develop strategies to monitor and manage third-party NIL dispersion; ensure collectives do not discriminate based on sex.11

The Road Ahead: Unresolved Questions and Future Challenges

The House v. NCAA settlement, while historic, is not a panacea for the complex issues facing college athletics. It instead ushers in a new era characterized by ongoing legal battles, intense competition, and significant uncertainty.

Recruiting and the Transfer Portal: A High-Stakes Arms Race

Direct payments are expected to “professionalize college athletics” 2, leading to “high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars”.2 The ability to offer direct payments will likely become a major factor in attracting and retaining top talent.2 The transfer portal, already a significant factor, is now seen as “just a baby step” 34 compared to the changes brought by the settlement. Athletes will likely use the portal even more strategically to seek the best compensation packages 33, creating a dynamic and potentially destabilizing “free agency” environment in college sports.

The ability to directly pay athletes 1 will undoubtedly intensify the existing “arms race” in college sports.2 Schools will prioritize securing top talent, potentially leading to an unsustainable escalation of compensation packages, especially for football and men’s basketball players who command the highest market value.2 This could exacerbate financial disparities between institutions 41 and potentially lead to “high-level cheating” and “illegal cash-deals” 44 as schools seek to circumvent salary caps. The increased fluidity of the transfer portal 34 will further destabilize rosters, making long-term team building more challenging and potentially impacting fan loyalty.

Impact on Non-Revenue Sports: An Existential Threat?

With the majority of direct payment funds expected to flow to football and men’s basketball 1, non-revenue sports are projected to receive a small fraction (around 5% or just over $1 million annually).28 Despite the removal of scholarship limits and potential for more scholarships 39, schools face immense financial pressure to remain competitive in revenue sports.21 This could lead to “decreased investment, or outright cuts, in some sports” 28, particularly for walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes.2 Some schools, especially those in lower football subdivisions or without football teams, may choose to opt out of the new framework 1, further fragmenting the collegiate sports landscape.

The financial realities of the House settlement, particularly the concentration of revenue-sharing funds in football and men’s basketball 27, create an existential threat to many non-revenue sports. Schools, facing immense pressure to compete in high-revenue areas, may be forced to make “difficult decisions, such as cutting programs or reducing roster sizes”.9 This will lead to a narrowing of athletic opportunities for student-athletes outside of the major revenue generators, potentially impacting the pipeline for Olympic sports 2 and contradicting the NCAA’s stated goal of broad-based athletic programs and student-athlete well-being.45 The “grandfathering” provisions are temporary, and the long-term trend points to a less diverse collegiate sports landscape.

Ongoing Litigation: The Perpetual Legal Battleground

While the House settlement resolves specific antitrust claims, it does not grant the NCAA broad antitrust immunity.12 This leaves the NCAA and conferences vulnerable to future legal challenges. Legal experts widely anticipate further lawsuits challenging various aspects of the new system, including:

  • Salary Caps: The “arbitrary” nature of the $20.5 million cap.6
  • NIL Go Decisions: Challenges to the “fair market value” determinations by the NIL Go clearinghouse.12
  • Title IX Compliance: Lawsuits alleging gender disparities in direct payments.4
  • Employee Status: Continued efforts to classify athletes as employees under FLSA and NLRA.5

The patchwork of state NIL laws, some of which explicitly prevent limits on athlete compensation 12, will continue to create legal conflicts with the new settlement rules.2

The House settlement, despite its intent to “stabilize college sports” 5, is widely viewed by experts as a “trade of one set of problems for a new set” 44 or a “band-aid” 32 that ushers in a “whole new type of chaos”.12 The fundamental reason is that the settlement does not grant the NCAA broad antitrust immunity 12, leaving it vulnerable to continuous legal challenges. This means that the various new rules—the salary cap, NIL Go’s fair market value determinations, and the distribution of funds—are all ripe for litigation, particularly on antitrust and Title IX grounds.12 The conflicting state laws 12 further complicate compliance and invite more legal battles. Thus, the settlement is not an end point but a catalyst for a new, prolonged era of legal disputes, ensuring that attorneys will remain central to the evolving landscape of college sports.

The Call for Stability: A Legislative Plea

NCAA President Charlie Baker has described the settlement as a “new beginning” 7 and expressed hope that it will serve as a “roadmap for legislative reform”.27 The NCAA continues to push for federal legislation to create a uniform rulebook for college sports and provide antitrust protection.2 The NCAA argues that a federal standard is necessary to stabilize the new model and address the fragmented legal landscape created by varying state laws and court rulings.2

The NCAA’s persistent call for federal legislation and an antitrust exemption 22 is a plea for stability in a system that has been repeatedly fractured by state laws and judicial rulings. However, the political reality of a divided Congress 59 and the deeply entrenched, often conflicting, interests of various stakeholders (universities, conferences, athletes, states) make the passage of comprehensive federal legislation highly improbable in the near term. This means that the fragmented and litigious landscape of college sports, characterized by a “race to the bottom” among states 12, is likely to persist. The absence of a unified federal framework will ensure ongoing legal uncertainty and a continued need for institutions to navigate a complex, multi-jurisdictional regulatory environment.

Conclusion: A New Landscape, New Legal Complexities

The House v. NCAA settlement undeniably marks a watershed moment, fundamentally transforming college athletics from a long-held amateur model to one where direct athlete compensation is a reality.2 This shift, driven by years of legal pressure and the threat of crippling antitrust damages, represents a significant step towards recognizing the economic value generated by student-athletes.

However, this “new beginning” 27 is far from a complete solution. The settlement, while resolving past antitrust claims, does not grant the NCAA broad immunity and introduces new complexities. The fundamental question of whether athletes are employees remains unresolved and is likely headed for a Supreme Court review. Title IX compliance, particularly regarding equitable distribution of direct payments, presents a significant and immediate legal challenge for institutions. The competitive landscape for recruiting will intensify, and non-revenue sports face potential cuts.5

The future of college sports will be characterized by ongoing litigation, evolving regulatory guidance, and continued pushes for legislative intervention. This is a dynamic and uncertain environment where proactive legal counsel will be paramount for universities, conferences, athletes, and related entities. Navigating this new era successfully will require continuous monitoring, strategic adaptation, and a deep understanding of the intricate interplay between employment law, Title IX, and antitrust principles. Our firm is committed to helping clients understand and navigate these profound changes, ensuring they are prepared for the challenges and opportunities ahead.5

Works cited

  1. With $2.7 billion settlement approved, college sports’ big money era is officially here – NPR, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/06/06/nx-s1-5426123/ncaa-settlement-deal-athlete-compensation-judge
  2. House v. NCAA settlement approved, paving way for colleges to pay …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-paving-way-colleges-pay-athletes
  3. Judge approves landmark NCAA settlement, clearing way for schools to pay athletes directly, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-approves-landmark-ncaa-settlement-clearing-way-schools-pay-athletes/
  4. Endgame for NCAA amateurism – InsideTheGames, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1153713/endgame-for-ncaa-amateurism
  5. Judge Rules Colleges Can Pay Student Athletes Directly – Inside Higher Ed, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/athletics/2025/06/07/us-judge-rules-colleges-can-directly-pay-student-athletes
  6. Federal Judge Approves House v. NCAA Settlement, Allowing College Athlete Pay, accessed June 7, 2025, https://frontofficesports.com/federal-judge-approves-house-v-ncaa-settlement-allowing-college-athlete-pay/
  7. Some NCAA Athletes Can Now Be Paid by Schools: What to Know – Newsweek, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/some-ncaa-athletes-can-now-paid-schools-what-know-2082354
  8. College Athletics Enters Revenue-Sharing Era As Judge Approves House Settlement, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.si.com/college-football/college-athletics-enters-revenue-sharing-era-judge-approves-house-settlement
  9. The Legal Battle: Student-Athlete or Employee? | Ave Maria School …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.avemarialaw.edu/the-legal-battle-student-athlete-or-employee/
  10. They’re in the Game: Johnson v. NCAA and Possible College …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.maynardnexsen.com/publication-theyre-in-the-game-johnson-v-ncaa-and-possible-college-athlete-flsa-coverage
  11. Title IX’s Journey: From NIL Beginnings to the House Settlement (Part 1), accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.brickergraydon.com/insights/publications/title-ixs-journey-from-nil-beginnings-to-the-house-settlement-part-1
  12. House v. NCAA settlement fundamentally alters college athletics, but don’t expect it to bring stability – CBSSports.com, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement-fundamentally-alters-college-athletics-but-dont-expect-it-to-bring-stability/
  13. A New Era: Understanding the Historic NCAA v. House Settlement, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.avemarialaw.edu/house-settlement/
  14. The Legal Debate Over Student-Athlete or Athlete-Student: Why This Group Should Not Be Classified as Employees – Harvard Undergraduate Law Review, accessed June 7, 2025, https://hulr.org/spring-2025/dnsyx5qysyjkl9totfyuvhrmliuc71
  15. THE DECONSTRUCTION OF AMATEURISM IN AMERICAN SPORTS – International Conference on Education and New Developments, accessed June 7, 2025, https://end-educationconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/03_OP_486.pdf
  16. pay the piper, and also the punter: an analysis of the college-athlete compensation movement – ILJ Template, accessed June 7, 2025, https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/30-2-Opila.pdf
  17. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – Wikipedia, accessed June 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association_v._Alston
  18. Shifting Tides: Exploring Antitrust Cases O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA and Their Impact on College Athletics | Basepath, accessed June 7, 2025, https://basepath.com/shifting-tides-exploring-antitrust-cases-obannon-v-ncaa-and-alston-v-ncaa-and-their-impact-on-college-athletics/
  19. NIL Timeline: The Events That Transformed College Sports – Foster Swift, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.fosterswift.com/communications-timeline-NIL-cases-transform-college-sports.html
  20. A New Era: NIL and the Evolution of College Sports – Business Law Section, accessed June 7, 2025, https://businesslaw.osbar.org/2024/09/26/a-new-era-nil-and-the-evolution-of-college-sports/
  21. NCAA Settlement Transforms College Sports – New Jersey State Bar Foundation, accessed June 7, 2025, https://njsbf.org/2025/01/02/ncaa-settlement-transforms-college-sports/
  22. Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes – The Spokesman-Review, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/jun/06/historic-house-v-ncaa-settlement-gets-final-approv/
  23. The History and Future of Amateurism in College Sports, accessed June 7, 2025, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1865&context=iplj
  24. Name, Image, Likeness; Rule Changes; and Unionization: Higher Ed Athletics – United Educators, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.ue.org/risk-management/athletics/nil-rule-changes-and-unionization/
  25. Third Circuit holds that NCAA athletes can be considered employees under FLSA, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/07/third-circuit-holds-that-ncaa-athletes-employees-under-flsa
  26. Brief on House v. NCAA Settlement (February 12, 2025)1 Prepared by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf
  27. Judge approves landmark House v. NCAA settlement – On3 – On3.com, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.on3.com/news/judge-approves-landmark-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
  28. NCAA Schools Can Now Pay Athletes Directly. What’s it Mean for …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/college/ncaa-schools-can-now-pay-athletes-directly-whats-it-mean-lacrosse
  29. USC Trojans Shares Plan For Direct Payments, NIL Approval After House Settlement, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.si.com/college/usc/football/usc-trojans-shares-plan-direct-payments-name-image-likeness-nil-approval-house-settlement-lincoln-riley-chad-bowden-eric-musselman
  30. College Athlete Compensation, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.collegeathletecompensation.com/
  31. House v. NCAA settlement complicated — and still not settled | University Times, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement
  32. A Breakthrough or a Band-Aid? The House Settlement and the Future of College Athlete Compensation | University of Miami Law Review, accessed June 7, 2025, https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/a-breakthrough-or-a-band-aid-the-house-settlement-and-the-future-of-college-athlete-compensation/
  33. A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.foxsports.com/articles/cfb/a-28-billion-settlement-will-change-college-sports-forever-heres-how
  34. Transfer portal a big change? House settlement says, “Hold my beer” – Writing Illini, accessed June 7, 2025, https://writingillini.com/transfer-portal-a-big-change-house-settlement-says-hold-my-beer
  35. A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how – 10TV, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.10tv.com/article/news/nation-world/ncaa-house-settlement-changes-college-sports/507-9b3919b7-a5ae-4026-86a5-f5c0ef2eba40
  36. $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement hangs in balance as federal judge extends response deadline – CBS Sports, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2-8-billion-house-v-ncaa-settlement-hangs-in-balance-as-federal-judge-extends-response-deadline/
  37. For college sports players, it’s first the cash and now the union – People’s World, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/for-college-sports-players-its-first-the-cash-and-now-the-union/
  38. How college athletes will be paid after House v. NCAA settlement: NIL changes, enforcement, contracts and more – CBS Sports, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-college-athletes-will-be-paid-after-house-v-ncaa-settlement-nil-changes-enforcement-contracts-and-more/
  39. Update from Martin Jarmond Following House v. NCAA Settlement – UCLA Athletics, accessed June 7, 2025, https://uclabruins.com/news/2025/6/7/bruin-athletics-update-from-martin-jarmond-following-house-v-ncaa-settlement
  40. What is the ‘House settlement,’ and what does it mean for the Gophers and NCAA?, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.startribune.com/house-v-ncaa-settlement-gophers-mark-coyle-revenue-sharing/601329545
  41. Student-Athletes or Athlete-Students? The Economics of Collegiate Athletics in the NIL Era, accessed June 7, 2025, https://equilibriumecon.wisc.edu/2025/01/09/student-athletes-or-athlete-students-the-economics-of-collegiate-athletics-in-the-nil-era/
  42. Details Emerging About Enforcement of the House Settlement – Business of College Sports, accessed June 7, 2025, https://businessofcollegesports.com/governance-2/details-emerging-about-enforcement-of-the-house-settlement/
  43. College Sports Commission: What to know about NCAA’s new enforcement organization, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.on3.com/teams/kentucky-wildcats/news/college-sports-commission-ncaa-enforcement-house-settlement/
  44. House v. NCAA settlement quells issues in college sports? No, but …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement-quells-issues-in-college-sports-no-but-be-prepared-for-a-whole-new-type-of-chaos/
  45. A Letter from NCAA President Charlie Baker – NCAA.org, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/6/6/media-center-a-letter-from-ncaa-president-charlie-baker.aspx
  46. House v. NCAA Settlement Gets Final Approval: How Will This Affect Georgia Tech Athletics? – Sports Illustrated, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/the-flats/house-v-ncaa-settlement-gets-final-approval-how-will-this-affect-georgia-tech-athletics-01jx41bgnj71
  47. SHOCKING: SEC, Big 10 Demanding Big 12 to BREAK THE LAW, Waive Legal Rights in NIL Era, Per Rumor – YouTube, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWpumLYNI_Q
  48. House v. NCAA Settlement Gets Final Approval: How Will This Affect The University of Virginia? – Sports Illustrated, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.si.com/college/virginia/all-sports/house-v-ncaa-settlement-gets-final-approval-how-will-this-affect-the-university-of-virginia-01jx45aemsg5
  49. Concerns grow over legal, financial impact of ‘NIL Go’ clearinghouse, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/05/29/concerns-grow-over-legal-financial-impact-of-nil-go-clearinghouse/
  50. New Era Begins As House Settlement Approved – University of …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://umterps.com/news/2025/6/6/general-new-era-begins-as-house-settlement-approved.aspx
  51. Federal Court Pumps the Brakes on House v. NCAA Settlement: What Comes Next for Roster Limits and College Athlete Pay? | Employment Law Lookout, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com/2025/04/federal-court-pumps-the-brakes-on-ncaa-house-settlement-what-comes-next-for-roster-limits-and-college-athlete-pay/
  52. Navigating Roster Limit Challenges: Updates to the House v. NCAA Settlement Agreement, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.nilrevolution.com/2025/05/navigating-roster-limit-challenges-updates-to-the-house-v-ncaa-settlement-agreement/
  53. College Athletes Can Get Paid. But, How? | Bold.org, accessed June 7, 2025, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20250311/117995/HHRG-119-JU05-20250311-SD011.pdf
  54. Did You Know? College Athletes May Now Be Entitled to Minimum …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.icemiller.com/thought-leadership/did-you-know-college-athletes-may-now-be-entitled-to-minimum-wages-and-overtime-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act
  55. A Field of [Employment] Dreams: Advocating for the Treatment of Student-Athletes as Employees in Iowa, accessed June 7, 2025, https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2025-01/ILR-110-Gilchrist_1.pdf
  56. Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n – Harvard Law Review, accessed June 7, 2025, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/johnson-v-national-collegiate-athletic-assn-108-f-4th-163-3d-cir-2024/
  57. Athletes Are Not a Dime a Dozen – The Johnson Court’s Failure to Distinguish Between Revenue-Generating, and Non-Revenue-Generating Athletes Leaves its Economic Realities Test Insufficient – Conduct Detrimental, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/athletes-are-not-a-dime-a-dozen-the-johnson-court-s-failure-to-distinguish-between-revenue-generat
  58. Memorandum Viewing College Athletes As Employees Rescinded …, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.si.com/fannation/name-image-likeness/nil-news/memorandum-viewing-college-athletes-employees-rescinded-trump-administration
  59. Congress Introduces Legislation on Employee Classification of Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.cupahr.org/blog/congress-introduces-legislation-on-employee-classification-of-student-athletes-2024-06-18/
  60. The NLRB’s Race to Turn Student Athletes into Employees Faces Its Next Hurdle—A Change in Administration – Venable LLP, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/01/the-nlrbs-race-to-turn-student-athletes-into
  61. Report: NLRB says college athletes can unionize; how … – Story, accessed June 7, 2025, https://m.fau.edu/u/news/detail?feed=university_press&id=0d1fb468-4297-57c0-b302-c38a56a79f26
  62. Unions Call Time Out on College Athletes, but Campus Organizing Plays On, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.laborrelationslawinsider.com/2025/01/unions-call-time-out-on-college-athletes-but-campus-organizing-plays-on/
  63. McClain Introduces Legislation to Protect Student-Athletes’ NIL Rights | Press Releases, accessed June 7, 2025, https://mcclain.house.gov/2025/4/mcclain-introduces-legislation-to-protect-student-athletes-nil-rights
  64. Public support for paying college athletes split, survey says | Higher Ed Dive, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.highereddive.com/news/public-support-for-paying-college-athletes-split-survey-says/602447/
  65. States Allowing Direct Payments to College Athletes, accessed June 7, 2025, https://businessofcollegesports.com/states-allowing-direct-payments-to-college-athletes/
  66. The Straining Effect of House v NCAA on College Athletics Departments – ScholarWorks@UARK, accessed June 7, 2025, https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=mktguht
  67. The U.S. Department of Education Issues Title IX Guidance on NIL Activities, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.f3law.com/insights/the-u-s-department-of-education-issues-title-ix-guidance-on-nil-activities-102jugd/
  68. Department of Education Issues Title IX … – Duane Morris LLP, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/department_education_issues_title_ix_guidance_concerning_nil_revenue_sharing_compensation_0125.html
  69. Title IX and Athletics: Legal Basics – Congress.gov, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12325
  70. Title IX Frequently Asked Questions – NCAA.org, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions.aspx
  71. NCAA proposes new rules to allow direct payments to players : r/CFB – Reddit, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1k4qbnc/ncaa_proposes_new_rules_to_allow_direct_payments/
  72. College Athletes Push Back on NCAA House Settlement, accessed June 7, 2025, https://www.thestudentathleteadvisors.com/blog/college-athletes-push-back-on-ncaa-house-settlement

A Message from Allen Greene on House vs. NCAA – Pitt Panthers #H2P, accessed June 7, 2025, https://pittsburghpanthers.com/news/2025/6/7/general-house-settlement-message