The marathon legal battle regarding player compensation and the makeup of college athletics in a landmark, multibillion-dollar antitrust case took another turn Monday night.
A federal judge granted attorneys involved in the $2.8 billion settlement an extension to to file “summary judgement and Daubert briefing.” With both sides still waiting for a final judgement and the original deadline coming on June 6, the new June 27 date provides proper time for a potential appeal. It also pushes the timeline for a potential resolution even closer to the expected start of revenue sharing payments to athletes on July 1.
Both sides came to a compromise on tweaking the aspect of roster limits in the settlement on May 7, which they hope will convince a federal judge to grant final approval. The judge twice voiced concerns over proposed roster limits, a small but significant aspect of the deal that will enable schools to pay athletes a portion of their media revenues, capped at $20.5 million.
Under the compromise, schools would be allowed — but not required — to reinstate players who were cut from rosters during the 2024-25 academic year without those players counting against new roster limits set to be implemented July 1. Purged players exempt from roster limits can also transfer to new schools.
The key language in the brief, however, is that roster-limit exceptions are to be made at a school’s discretion. It remains to be seen if the brief will satisfy Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who specifically asked attorneys to “grandfather” all players into the deal, after twice delaying a decision on whether to approve the settlement in April.
“In other words, there are no guarantees that designated student-athletes will get or maintain roster spots,” the NCAA and power conference’s counsel wrote in a supplemental brief Wednesday. “But that does not adversely affect any injunctive relief class member.”
High school seniors who were promised scholarships that were later rescinded because of the proposed roster limits will also be exempt.
Now, college athletics waits – again – for a decision from federal court. Wilken gave preliminary approval in October, speaking in favor of most aspects of the deal. However, she has twice delayed final approval because of language tied to roster limits, which could lead to an estimated 5,000 players being cut from sports across the NCAA.
Several objectors testified April 7 against replacing scholarship limits with roster limits at a settlement hearing in the District Court of Northern California. In a brief filed April 23, Wilken ordered attorneys to develop a plan to “grandfather” current players into the agreement, allowing schools to temporarily exceed new limits as part of a phase-in solution for rosters. A two-week negotiation ensued.
If Wilken is not satisfied with the parties’ resolution and declines final approval, the case may advance to trial, a daunting prospect for the NCAA, which has been bludgeoned legally over student-athlete compensation and lambasted by the Supreme Court over the last five years. If the NCAA and power conferences lose in trial, the parties could be liable for $20 billion in damages.
If the settlement is not approved, schools may soon turn to their state governments to help legalize direct pay to players, who have planned to be paid a share of the $20.5 million pool next fall.
Wilken’s request on April 23 to renegotiate aspects of roster limits sent shockwaves across the country, complicating matters for many schools that had already begun cutting players from rosters. Under the preliminary settlement released in October, football rosters were set to shrink to 105 players, meaning as many as 30-plus players would be cut at each school. Even before the judge’s final approval, schools began to cut players in the spring in preparation for the settlement’s implementation on July 1.
Putting the toothpaste back in the tube could prove difficult for athletic departments. Some purged players landed at new schools, but many remain without a home, hoping to land again at their former schools. Most schools might be unwilling to re-sign players and spend extra scholarship money – as well as room and board, meals and health care – that balloon already-tight budgets.
In a brief filed April 23, Wilken was unmoved by the schools’ plight, writing that “any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA members schools’ own making.”
The settlement’s touchstones remain uncchanged. Starting July 1, NCAA schools can share as much as $20.5 million in revenue with their athletes, and former athletes who played between 2016 and 2024 will be paid $2.8 billion in back payments if the settlement is approved.
Each school’s revenue-sharing cap will increase 4% each year during the 10-year agreement.
What is House v. NCAA?
The class-action antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women’s college basketball player Sedona Prince seeking an injunction against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. It sought to lift restrictions on revenue sharing of media rights revenues.
Powerful antitrust attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler represented the plaintiffs.
If approved by the judge, the settlement would resolve three antitrust lawsuits: Carter v. NCAA, House v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA.
What’s next?
A decision: Judge Claudia WIlken will study the brief and decide whether to grant final approval to the House v. NCAA settlement, which was first introduced in October and has included months of negotiations.
Revenue-sharing formula: Many schools are preparing to mirror the back-payment formula in their revenue-sharing model for the future. That means roughly 75% of future revenue will be shared with football players, 15% to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball and 5% to all remaining sports. Those numbers will differ from school to school, but most power programs have shared similar models with administrators.
CBS Sports has learned one school is preparing to share more than 85% of the $20.5 million pool with football players – a reflection of the percentage of annual revenue the sport generates for its athletics department.
More lawsuits: Concerns over Title IX and antitrust issues will continue after the settlement is approved. However, instead of the NCAA being the target, individual schools may soon become the focus of litigation. Each school will split the revenue pie based on its own formulas, meaning a women’s basketball player may sue a school if they believe they are not receiving their fair share of cash. The same can be said for a football player if their revenue share is lower than that of a rival player at another school.
The White House is set to weigh in: The NCAA has long lobbied Congress to pass legislation protecting the organization and its members from antitrust litigation. Now the White House has zeroed in on college athletics.
President Donald Trump is creating a presidential commission on college athletics to find solutions for “issues ailing the ecosystem,” according to Yahoo! Sports. Trump was considering an executive order to regulate NIL after meeting with former Alabama coach Nick Saban, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn coach, also met with Trump last week to discuss college athletics. Steve Berman, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the House case, criticized the president’s potential actions, saying that an executive order would lead to more lawsuits.
Sen. Ted Cruz is reportedly drafting a bill that could offer the NCAA limited antitrust protection. It’s not clear how Trump’s plans may affect Cruz’s draft.
New enforcement model: The power conferences are expected to launch soon the College Sports Commission, an enforcement arm to police the settlement among its schools. The new organization effectively replaces the NCAA regarding NIL enforcement, and will monitor NIL deals between players and third parties, and oversee revenue-sharing practices at schools. This new organization will also penalize schools and individuals who break rules.
Who is footing the bill? The NCAA is responsible for 40% of the $2.8 billion settlement, and the remaining 60% will come from reducing its revenue distributions to the 32 Division I conferences over the next 10 years ($1.6 billion). The NCAA is utilizing a formula based on revenue distribution presented to each league over a nine-year period starting in 2016, which leans heavily on basketball units tied to NCAA Tournament participation, according to Yahoo Sports. The Power Five conferences – ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC – will pay 24% of the overall damages, followed by the Group of Five at 10%.The FCS is on the hook for 14% and non-football conferences in Division I will pay 12% of the overall agreement, according to documents reviewed by CBS Sports.
House v. NCAA settlement terms
- $20.5 million salary cap for revenue-sharing at each Division I school (starting July 1)
- $2.77 billion in back payments to as many as 390,000 athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016 and 2024.
- Outside NIL deals of more than $600 must be vetted by a third-party clearinghouse
- NIL deals must meet “fair market value.” How that fair-market value is determined is the subject of intense debate.
- Unlimited scholarships with new roster size limits
- At least 88,104 of approximately 390,000 athletes have filed back-pay claims, plaintiff attorney Steve Berman said in April. That number was expected to reach 118,879 at the end of April.
- 343 athletes opted out of the settlement
ichigan difference,” commented a fourth.
