[co-author: Sydnee Over]
The world of college sports enters historic new territory after Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the $2.8 billion settlement of the federal class-action antitrust lawsuit House v. NCAA on June 6, 2025.1 Much ink has been spilled about this litigation and the settlement, so we will be brief. The most significant elements of the settlement are as follows:
- Athletes who competed in 2016-2024 and did not receive NIL (name, image, and likeness) compensation will receive payments totaling $2.8 billion over the next ten years.
- Colleges and universities can directly compensate athletes roughly $20.5 million per school in 2025-2026, increasing by 4% annually for the next ten years.
- New rules will limit the number of players allowed to be on team rosters.
- A new entity, the College Sports Commission LLC (CSC), will be responsible for enforcing the rules relating to revenue-sharing, NIL deals, and roster limits.
Although the full impact of this settlement is uncertain, at least one appeal has already been filed, and additional litigation appears inevitable. On June 11, 2025, eight female athletes filed an appeal arguing that the distribution of approximately $2.8 billion violates Title IX because female athletes will receive less money than men’s basketball and football players.2 Under the terms of the settlement, the first payments were scheduled to be made on July 1, 2025. Those payments will now be deferred while the appeal is under review.3
Other legal challenges are looming. There are also likely to be disputes relating to the value of NIL deals. The House settlement requires that any NIL deal worth more than $600 will be audited to ensure the deal reflects fair market value. Directors from the five leading athletic conferences have retained Deloitte to act as an auditor.4 In a meeting this spring between officials from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and Deloitte, it was determined that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied for not properly reflecting fair market value.5 Any NIL deal that is denied can be revised to align with the CSC’s suggested evaluation.6 If the revised deal is again denied by auditors, athletes may appeal to a separate, court-overseen arbitration system.7 Athletes who lose their arbitration case and nonetheless accept the NIL compensation may be deemed ineligible for competition.8
Although the settlement represents a landmark resolution of three antitrust lawsuits, it does not resolve all antitrust concerns in collegiate athletics. Some critics argue that the salary pool constitutes illegal wage fixing and a violation of the Sherman Act because the $20.5 million limit restricts high-revenue-generating athletes from earning more than they could earn in the free market.9 Furthermore, since college athletes are not unionized, the salary pool is not the result of good faith collective bargaining and cannot fall under a non-statutory labor exemption that shields collective bargaining agreements and related actions from antitrust liability.10 Disputes relating to the employment status of college athletes—and their compensation—will persist.
In the face of this uncertainty, some federal lawmakers have proposed legislation designed to resolve at least some of the disputes the House settlement does not permanently resolve. For now, it seems clear that although the settlement has met with final approval, it will not finally resolve all disputes relating to the compensation of student athletes. It would be wise to heed Seth Waxman’s warning to the Supreme Court in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston: The alternative to preserving amateurism in the NCAA may be “perpetual litigation and judicial superintendence.”11
Footnotes
