The Case
Known as House v. NCAA, the agreement combines three major antitrust cases and proposes a new system where schools could share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes starting next year. Additionally, $2.8 billion would be allocated as back pay to athletes who competed before NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rules were updated to allow them to profit from their personal brands without jeopardizing NCAA eligibility.
Judge Wilken said she’s holding off on final approval to address a few unresolved issues. During Monday’s hearing, some athletes spoke out against the settlement. Notably, NIL star Livvy Dunne criticized the formula for calculating compensation, claiming it undervalues her market impact. Meanwhile, smaller schools raised concerns that the financial structure would deepen disparities, making it harder to support athletes in non-revenue or Olympic sports.
Key Parties in the Settlement
Plaintiffs: Led by former and current college athletes, including Grant House (swimming), Sedona Prince (women’s basketball), and DeWayne Carter (football), who challenged the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation.
Defendants: The NCAA and the Power Five conferences—SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and ACC—agreed to the settlement terms pending final judicial approval.
Financial Implications for Athletes
Backpay Distribution: Approximately $2.78 billion is allocated for athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024. Average payouts are estimated at $135,000 for football and men’s basketball players, and $35,000 for women’s basketball players from Power Five schools.
Future Revenue Sharing: In 2025, schools can distribute up to $21 million annually to athletes, representing about 22% of athletic revenue. This figure is expected to grow with increasing media rights deals.
Title IX and Equity Concerns
Despite the settlement’s progress, concerns have arisen regarding gender equity around disproportionate payouts and the impact on non-revenue sports.
Disproportionate Payouts: Critics argue that the settlement disproportionately benefits male athletes in revenue-generating sports, potentially violating Title IX provisions.
Impact on Non-Revenue Sports: There are fears that increased financial commitments to major sports could lead to reduced support for women’s and non-revenue sports programs.
Immediate Effects on Players
Eligibility for Compensation: All Division I athletes from 2016 onward are eligible for backpay, with specific amounts determined by factors such as sport and duration of participation.
NIL Opportunities: Athletes can continue to earn from third-party Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, with the NCAA implementing measures to ensure these agreements reflect genuine endorsement value.
Ongoing Developments
The settlement awaits final approval from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, with a decision anticipated soon.
