The long-anticipated approval of the House v. NCAA settlement—set to redefine the future of college athletics—has hit a brief but significant pause. A federal judge has requested additional revisions before granting final approval to the landmark antitrust agreement that would, for the first time in NCAA history, permit schools to directly pay student-athletes.
A Settlement That Changes Everything
At stake is a $2.77 billion settlement that will compensate athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 for past restrictions on profiting from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The deal also paves the way for future revenue sharing beginning July 1, with each Division I school permitted to distribute up to $20.5 million annually to players—a cap that will grow by 4% each year over the agreement's 10-year span.
The settlement also resolves three related antitrust lawsuits: House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA. Plaintiffs, led by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women's basketball player Sedona Prince, sought to dismantle longstanding NCAA restrictions on revenue sharing.
Why the Delay?
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who is presiding over the case, emphasized that while she sees promise in the current proposal, a few critical issues require further refinement:
-
Roster Limits: One of the most contentious aspects of the proposed settlement involves new roster caps, which could result in approximately 5,000 athletes losing their spots across NCAA sports. Wilken suggested that current athletes be “grandfathered in,” allowing them to remain on teams through the end of their eligibility, even if that means exceeding the new limits temporarily. NCAA attorneys pushed back, citing concerns about fairness and logistics.
-
Future Athlete Class Ties: The court wants clarity on whether future athletes should be bound by the current terms. Wilken proposed changes to allow future players to voice objections each year during the settlement term, rather than locking them into the existing structure without recourse.
Impact: Title IX and Beyond
The fallout of the settlement could trigger a new wave of legal scrutiny, especially under Title IX. If schools implement revenue-sharing models that heavily favor revenue-generating sports like football and men's basketball, litigation may follow from female athletes or other programs arguing unequal treatment. Already, some schools have begun cutting players in anticipation of new roster rules, with athletes reporting lost scholarships and rescinded offers.
Congress Steps Into the Ring
Adding another layer of complexity, there are growing concerns that if the court fails to finalize the settlement soon, Congress may act to protect the NCAA from further antitrust liability. Senator Ted Cruz is reportedly drafting a bill to designate athletes as “students, not employees,” which could limit legal exposure for the NCAA and its member schools.
However, Judge Wilken appeared unconvinced by the urgency of this legislative threat, indicating her focus remains on crafting a legally sound, equitable resolution.
What Comes Next?
-
Attorneys have been directed to revise and resubmit the agreement, with a final decision possible once those changes are made—potentially in the coming weeks.
-
On Capitol Hill, NCAA leaders and conference commissioners are lobbying Congress for federal legislation that would solidify the terms of the settlement and provide broader protections from future lawsuits.
-
Meanwhile, the NCAA and power conferences are developing a new enforcement body to oversee compliance with NIL rules and revenue-sharing practices, signaling a shift in regulatory power away from the NCAA itself.
Final Thoughts from Saluja Law
The House settlement is nothing short of a paradigm shift for college athletics. For decades, the NCAA has maintained amateurism as a legal and cultural cornerstone. This agreement, once finalized, acknowledges a new era—where athletes are not only celebrated but compensated.
Still, the road ahead is uncertain. Questions around roster caps, Title IX compliance, NIL valuation, and fair implementation remain. As legal counsel for athletes, schools, and NIL entities, we'll be watching closely—and advising our clients on how to navigate this evolving landscape.
If you're an athlete, coach, administrator, or NIL service provider with questions about how this ruling affects your rights or responsibilities, Saluja Law is here to help.