On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the proposed settlement in the House v. NCAA class action litigation. The landmark antitrust settlement provides $2.8 billion to a class of approximately 390,000 former collegiate athletes in backpay for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Most of this money is expected to go to athletes who participated in revenue sports, including football and men’s and women’s basketball. The settlement also establishes a 10-year revenue sharing model going forward and allows university athletic departments to issue direct payments to athletes of up to $20.5 million annually beginning in the 2025-2026 athletic year. The settlement concludes three separate antitrust lawsuits that claimed the NCAA and Power Four athletic conferences were illegally limiting college athletes’ ability to profit from their publicity rights.
Background
The House settlement follows the landmark O’Bannon and Alston cases, which were both significant milestones that challenged the NCAA’s long-standing principle of amateurism preventing athletes from receiving any compensation beyond traditional athletic scholarships. The original House case was brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a swimmer from Arizona State University, and Sedona Prince, a basketball player from the University of Oregon. The lawsuit alleged that NCAA policies prohibiting athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL or from sharing in the revenue generated by lucrative media contracts were unlawful. Two other antitrust lawsuits were eventually consolidated with House.
Next Steps
While the House settlement has now been approved, the legal battles are just beginning.
Title IX Implications
Female athletes have already appealed the approval of the settlement, arguing that the terms violate existing Title IX requirements. While this appeal only addresses the backpay portion of the settlement, significant Title IX challenges will likely follow, as the settlement does not address how future payments and revenue-sharing models might be impacted by the statute, which requires scholarships and grants-in-aid to be distributed proportionately to male and female athletes. This issue is especially relevant for female athletes who participate in non-revenue sports.
Employment Implications
The settlement also did not address growing questions regarding the treatment of student-athletes as employees under federal and state employment laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, the settlement was silent as to the ability of student-athletes to unionize and whether they may have certain collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. These issues are already the subject of ongoing litigation, with more lawsuits likely to follow.
Follow-On Antitrust and State Law Claims
Lastly, additional antitrust and state law claims by boosters and NIL collectives are also likely. Specifically, the settlement calls for oversight of all NIL deals valued over $600 in the form of mandatory reporting and further contemplates the passage of enforcement and compliance rules by the NCAA and individual conferences. To assist with compliance, the consulting firm Deloitte has been tasked with assessing the market value of NIL agreements based on 12 evaluative factors in order to ensure that the deals include “fair compensation” for a “valid business purpose.” These attempts to constrain third-party NIL deals could prompt challenges based on antitrust law or conflicting state law regulations.
Notwithstanding these challenges, the NCAA and member institutions are preparing to implement the terms of the settlement beginning on July 1.
Authors: